All posts in the topic [Fwd: [A2k] Free Software/Services at NY State Senate] (Short link)
Summary
- There are 11 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Don Christie at 2009 Jun 22 09:54 NZST
FYI
Mark Harris wrote: > Welcome to the Open NYSenate > > To pursue its commitment to transparency and openness the New York > State Senate (http://nysenate.gov/) is undertaking a cutting-edge > program to not only release data, but help empower citizens and give > back to the community. Under this program the New York Senate will, > for the first time ever, give developers and other users direct access > to its data through APIs and release its original software to the > public. By placing the data and technological developments generated > by the Senate in the public domain, the New York Senate hopes to > invigorate, empower and engage citizens in policy creation and > dialogue. Ok, so this is a question borne of naivety, but why doesn't NZ Govt just do this?? Not piecemeal, but wholesale. Is it: - lack of understanding - lack of vision - lack of co-ordination - doesn't fit with political philosophy I love that the "New York Senate hopes to" ... "hopes"! Not a sure-thing, but a hope. Why aren't we opening stuff up and hoping?
Mike Brown wrote:
> Ok, so this is a question borne of naivety, but why doesn't NZ Govt just
> do this?? Not piecemeal, but wholesale.
>
> Is it:
>
> - lack of understanding
> - lack of vision
> - lack of co-ordination
> - doesn't fit with political philosophy
>
All of the above, but especially the lack of co-ordination. The NZ State
sector is a house divided by the State Sector Act. At times, departments
and ministries actively compete against each other (and against the
country's best interests) for funding and control of resources because
they are structurally saddled with operating "efficiently and
effectively" against individual performance targets, rather than for the
greater good.
It's pathetic and one of the worst legacies of the '84 Labour Government.
On 20/06/2009, at 10:10 PM, Mark Harris wrote:
> At times, departments
> and ministries actively compete against each other (and against the
> country's best interests) for funding and control of resources because
> they are structurally saddled with operating "efficiently and
> effectively" against individual performance targets, rather than for
> the
> greater good.
What I fail to understand is how opening data and efficiency are not
seen as being complimentary. In fact I think opening data is one of
the first efficiency gains that can be made. If you build your systems
on top of standard, open, defined interfaces internally then this
should lead to cost savings as you don't have to re-invent the wheel
every time. Have they looked at Amazon I wonder? AFAIK Amazon uses a
lot of the same API's internally that they make available to everybody
else. Surely turning on the tap and allowing people to access data
without having to talk to anyone, fax license agreements and have
requests for information reviewed by humans is far more efficient than
scrutinising each requests for access to the [insert name of dataset
here]?
On 21/06/2009, at 10:48 AM, Glen Barnes wrote:
> If you build your systems on top of standard, open, defined
> interfaces internally then this should lead to cost savings as you
> don't have to re-invent the wheel every time.
This is true. As I understand it, though, the New Zealand government
has a 115 year history behind it, and the pain and expense comes from
*changing* systems to have the properties you describe. They're at a
local minimum for operational expense. Yes, there is a lower point
elsewhere, but it costs money to get there and regardless of long-term
savings it's the short-term cost that is the obstacle.
Would love to be corrected,
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Would love to be corrected,
>
Wish I could, but the nail on the head you have hit. :-(
So, one of the progressions we have to aim for is not just showing
governance bodies a better way to do their systems/data, but a l
ow-cost, low-pain migration path to get there.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nathan Torkington
<email obscured>>wrote:
> the pain and expense comes from
> *changing* systems to have the properties you describe.
>
And typically the largest government ICT systems are on a 10-15 year
investment cycle. If your idea doesn't make the requirements phase of the
next build, then you could be 20-30 years behind.
This is why it is so important to include such thinking into those big
systems currently being scoped e.g. Border / Immigration. You don't get
another shot for a VERY long time. :)
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> This is true. As I understand it, though, the New Zealand government
> has a 115 year history behind it, and the pain and expense comes from
> *changing* systems to have the properties you describe. They're at a
> local minimum for operational expense. Yes, there is a lower point
> elsewhere, but it costs money to get there and regardless of long-term
> savings it's the short-term cost that is the obstacle.
>
Mark Harris wrote:
> Wish I could, but the nail on the head you have hit. :-(
> So, one of the progressions we have to aim for is not just showing
> governance bodies a better way to do their systems/data, but a
> low-cost, low-pain migration path to get there.
Mike Pearson wrote:
> And typically the largest government ICT systems are on a 10-15 year
> investment cycle. If your idea doesn't make the requirements phase
of > the next build, then you could be 20-30 years behind.
>
> This is why it is so important to include such thinking into those big
> systems currently being scoped e.g. Border / Immigration. You don't
>get another shot for a VERY long time. :)
So is this something we should/could work on? That right now is not the
time to (as NZ so often does) settle for short-term half-assed
solutions. But there's a huge opportunity opening stuff up, having a
longer term view etc etc
Do something along the lines of how it seems the broadband debate was
given a push by Foo Camp discussion and "Drury paper".
Is there any chance of that having an impact? Would it be a waste of
time? Could it be done with a top-down approach?
It seems freaking' crazy to me that so much of what allowed NZ to
achieve good nation-focused stuff was lost in the 1984 shakeup.
Or am I dreaming? :)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Mike Brown <email obscured>> wrote: > Do something along the lines of how it seems the broadband debate was > given a push by Foo Camp discussion and "Drury paper". > Hi Mike, *The SSC already has it in its Statement of Intent, but the performance indicator focuses on agency reuse, not public reuse. * State Services Commission Statement of Intent 2009-2012 - Intervention 2: Setting standards http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?navid=119&docid=7217&pageno=6#P141_15056 *We know there are significant opportunities to reduce costs for businesses and improve access for individuals to taxpayer-funded information held by State sector agencies. The Commission will work to ease the reuse and transparency of information through promoting common web, geospatial, business reporting and identity verification standards across agencies and acting as a conduit for connecting users and holders of government information. * *Performance indicator: Measure and improve on the degree to which user information is reused by other agencies to improve front line service delivery. * *The paper has already been written (but for the UK)** * http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/power_of_information.aspx *What you'd probably be wanting is a public indication from Cabinet or a Minister, that it is considered important.* My 2c worth
Mike The dual licensing model is exactly the one I suggested over a year ago to Laurence M. and others: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs/pass-the-source/1877793/More-Foo-and-Government-IP The result was that individual suppliers could GPL the software if they wanted to but that, to me, seems to still be an awful waste of NZ taxpayer money and less likely to produce a sustainable product, Free or proprietary. So, to those that are left in SSC, please do push for the dual licence for public works. It allows companies to commercialise if the like and it allows open source projects to spawn. I suspect the latter would be more successful as a general rule but would not want to close off the former either.