W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Restarting W3C eGov Meetings and Roadmap

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:16:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXe=So+hv4tN=MEn394-KpvvMVumRQV8GZH=7+C2QfV4e_G9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi John

> Many of the participants in the new, fresh W3C eGov discussion will  have been at this week's events in Brussels, including "Semantic Interoperability" <http://bit.ly/KEGpQr>, "Using Open Data" <http://bit.ly/yN8Exb> and "Digital Agenda Assembly" <http://bit.ly/L37Ksa>. Although I could only participate in the
second, I must say I did not hear any calls to stop the meeting and
> define terms --- there seems to be a consensus in the room of what is meant by e-government.

what is consensus what is meant by e-governemnt then?

I attended all three last year 2011, but not this year.

I agree, nobody stopped the meeting, but there was terrible confusion
in what was being done and talked about
(may have changed by now, but I doubt it)

Back then I left rather worried that most consensus  then was seemed
to be rather 'apparent',  largely the result of superficial discourse.

Have things improved since then?


It is easy to get consensus when  avoiding the fundamental issues.

In the 'corridor' type conversations I had then, most participants I
talked to did share serious concerns (whispering)  that people did not
have a clue really about they were talking about and nobody could
answer key questions. it was glorified chit chat with the pretense of
making things happen democratically, but it was easy to see how the
real score was being set elsewhere, behind the scenes, and well away
from public scrutiny.
However nobody wanted to spoil the party by saying so.
Of course there is consensus when everybody is having fun.

This is how things are done, John, as far as I observe them:
thre is political manipulation of intents that happens somewhere along
the line, pretty much in every government

Some believe that through the appropriate use of new technologies,
such as the web, we have the ability to change these distortions, but
that implies becoming rather pedantic at times, often at great
personal cost,


> Maybe that's because the participants are so refreshing engaged, thinking about practical ways to use government open data to reach out  to citizens, to implement evidence-based policy making, and other innovations in participatory government. We are living in exciting  times, with enormous opportunities to affect change in the world!


Yes, definitely, and we have to make sure the world changes for the
best, and not let superficiality and apparent consensus make
irreversible fundamental mistakes about the nature of eGov, as well as
everything else we talk about.


> My point is, I hope we spend time in eGov talking about these >sorts of innovations and less about definitions...

 Sure:-)  I hope that we can spend time talking about exciting
innovations making sure we  do not rely too much on false assumptions
and with clear shared understanding of what each of us is doing,
otherwise we run the risk of making the same mistakes over and over.



PDM



>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> wrote:
>> Dear Paola,
>>
>> Many thanks for your contribution.
>>
>>> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?
>>
>> The survey of the eGov Meetings times - the first news on
>> http://www.w3.org/egov/. The eGov Atlantic Meeting Times poll is
>> available at http://www.doodle.com/getnrihx2xsibu2y and the Eurasian
>> pool at http://www.doodle.com/crt6v4su4gums7sk.
>>
>>> 1. the link to definition, does not redirect to a definition , as
>>> far as I can see at my end (but good that there is a plan to
>>> evaluate the definition)
>>
>> You are right, the definition has gone down the
>> http://www.w3.org/egov/ page; we are correcting this.
>>
>>> 2. Any meaningful discussion, for example to address mechanics and
>>> value proposition is constrained (ontologically) by the definitions
>>> adopted, therefore I must insist on the suggestion that we need to
>>> agree with a definition first, and the definition should be 'valid'
>>> and functional to the purpose of e-government in the true sense.
>>
>> Your view is noted with thanks. Indeed, we already had a rich exchange
>> of ideas about the nature and definition of e-government, beyond the
>> current definition adopted by W3C; which, by the way, facilitated
>> meaningful discussions of this group since May 2008. The revision of
>> this definition may be indeed needed, considering new trends in public
>> sector technology and its larger socio-economic impact since 2008.
>>
>> But, in my view, this revision should not be a precondition to our
>> continuing discussion, on the grounds of the current definition and
>> understanding of e-government by W3C, about the mechanics, value
>> proposition and localization of e-government. Without considering
>> these applied areas, I think we will be able to continue conceptual
>> and terminological discussions for quite a long time, but not conclude
>> them. The roadmap should help us gradually adopt and then elaborate
>> (even formalize ontologically) the new understanding and definition of
>> e-government to address the emerging needs, opportunities and
>> challenges facing the public sector and its use of the web.
>>
>>> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
>>> soliciting as feedback,
>>
>> Absolutely. Your feedback is always appreciated!
>>
>> Many regards,
>>
>> Tomasz
>>
>>> Dear Jeanne
>>
>>> thanks for the update
>>
>>> good to see a plan ahead, I ll aim to contribute when possible to this
>>> interesting work
>>
>>> Skimmed through your mail and links, Just a couple of points:
>>>>
>>>> First, we will be resuming the meetings for the W3C eGov Interest Group.
>>>> Based on your responses to the survey, we will have a meeting every two
>>>> weeks, with differing times to best reach your time zones:
>>
>>> what survey? - could find no link or is it an older one?
>>
>>
>>>> We have published the draft roadmap document to the wiki
>>>> at http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki. We welcome your comments and
>>>> suggestions.
>>
>>> 1. the link to definition, does not redirect to a definition , as far
>>> as I can see at my end
>>> (but good that there is a plan to evaluate the definition)
>>
>>> 2. Any meaningful discussion, for example to address mechanics and
>>> value proposition
>>> is constrained (ontologically) by the definitions adopted, therefore I
>>> must insist on the suggestion that we need to agree with a definition
>>> first, and the definition should be
>>> 'valid'  and functional to the purpose of e-government in the true sense.
>>
>>> 3. define some general vocabulary. Again, this is a recurring thing,
>>> but the terminology/concepts that we adopt are likely to shape
>>> discourse. for example, not just the definition of egov.
>>
>>> For example, I do not object to the word  'citizenry' , but I wonder
>>> if we all use it in the same way. In the light of
>>> modern and democratic constitutions that eGov emanates from (from what
>>> I understand)  citizens are sovereign , therefore citizenry can be a
>>> synonym of sovereignty Is this what is intended as 'citizenry' in the
>>> charter
>>
>>
>>> A bit nitpicking perhaps, but thats what i understand you are
>>> soliciting as feedback,
>>
>>> Thank you, best
>>
>>> PDM
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
> Director, Web Science Operations
> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 13:17:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 June 2012 13:17:12 GMT