Re: whats the plan then?

Thanks Tomasz and Jeanne

The plan looks good, but we need to implement it!

To enable participation (glad its on the cards) we need
the tools in place to actually make it happen

Monthly calls are good for discussions, but should the community have a
mechanism to allow those who cannot make the call to also express their
views on the issues/discussion that take place during the call?

That can be done in so many ways these days: an interactive map, a
protopage even
(just an example of shared brainstorming sessions)
http://www.protopage.com/

I wanted to suggest lets aim to produce some proceedings, or a journal, or
a book or something, nice to see its in the plan alreadys

In short, Tomasz, my suggestion is:

Please lets set up the tools to enable members to actively help to set the
priorities and the agenda for this group, as well as  take part in
discussions/ decisions

Please lets define a self governance process for this IG
(a bit circular, I know)

Let's ensure that what we do is not only theoritical/speculative, but also
pragmatic and *transformative*.

I will






On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> wrote:

> Hi Paola, Jeanne, Everybody,
>
> Thank you for the welcome!
>
> On the plan or roadmap for W3C e-Government Interest Group, adding to
> Jeanne's reply, we certainly would like the members of this group to
> contribute not only to the implementation but to the formulation of
> this plan. I see the role of co-chairs, including my own, as
> facilitators and providers of inputs to the discussion. So I am fully
> on board with reinforcing the participatory principle, and hope Paola
> will stay and spend her energy here :-).
>
> Now, concerning the plan, following the discussions last year, the
> charter (http://www.w3.org/egov/IG/charter-2011) mentions six
> candidates for focal areas: government data, accessibility, social
> media, community directory, education and outreach, and data
> licensing. Additionally: cloud computing, MathML, HTML5 and web
> application platform, privacy and security, and eGov library. Building
> on this and following the seminar on Policy-Driven EGOV
> (http://www.w3.org/egov/IG/slides/2012-02-21.pdf) we discussed how to
> organize the whole discussion space, including these area, according
> to the EGOV policy cycle:
>
> 1. EGOV Planning - law and regulations, strategy development, strategy
> alignment, funding arrangements, readiness assessment, policy
> development, action plans, partner management, stakeholder,
> leadership, coordination, etc.
>
> 2. EGOV Design - interoperability, enterprise architecture, standards
> and best practices, agency collaboration, information-sharing,
> one-stop government, connected governance, agile government,
> multi-channel delivery, innovation systems, etc.
>
> 3. EGOV Implementation - acquisition, procurement, technical
> infrastructure, electronic public services, service middleware,
> services and applications, negotiation and contracts, new technology
> adoption, project management, program management, organizational
> change, etc.
>
> 4. EGOV Operation - Service agreements, monitoring, software
> maintenance, adoption and scale-up, access and accessibility, digital
> content, digital rights, digital divide, benefit management, risk
> management, performance management, etc.
>
> 5. EGOV Sustainability - measurement, monitoring and evaluation,
> knowledge management, capacity building, institutionalization, etc.
>
> We also discussed the principle of separating the issue of EGOV
> mechanics (HOW), covered by the policy cycle, from the EGOV value
> proposition (WHY). While the mechanics is more amendable to
> standardization and packaging into best practices and (perhaps?) more
> stable, the value proposition has to be generally worked out and owned
> locally, and subject to continued policy alignment. So, following the
> policy cycle, the discussion could focus on the value proposition and
> what benefits different countries can actually achieve through EGOV,
> against their policy objectives, and what they can learn from each
> other as they pursue their policy objectives through EGOV.
>
> Finally, the discussion could focus on the nature, definition and
> conceptualization of EGOV - the WHAT dimension. I would rather deal
> with fundamental questions after dealing with the mechanics (HOW) and
> value proposition (WHY); we should be then in a better position to do
> so rather than putting definitions and conceptualizations up-front.
>
> As a concrete implementation of these ideas, we could devote each
> monthly meeting to one stage in the policy cycle, before moving on to
> country experiences in different regions of the world, before finally
> tackling the fundamental questions. It would be also good to see how
> this discussion could lead to the publication of technical notes to
> document the progress made, including updates to the document
> "Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web"
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-egov-improving-20090512/). A year
> worth of productive discussions :-)!
>
> I welcome your comments and feedback on these ideas.
>
> Many regards,
>
> Tomasz
>
> ------------
> Dr. Tomasz Janowski
> Senior Research Fellow, UNU-IIST
> Head, UNU-IIST Center for Electronic Governance
> Associate Editor, Government Information Quarterly
> Co-Chair, e-Government Interest Group, World Wide Web Consortium
> Coordinator, ICEGOV Conference Series
> www:   http://unu.edu/faculty/tomasz-janowski
> email: tj@iist.unu.edu | phone: +853 66652305 | skype: tomaszjanowski
>
> > Paola--
>
> > Thanks for your contributions!
>
> > We did have a series of calls and IRC chats late last year and a
> > face to face meeting at the W3C TPAC.  Virtual attendance was also
> > provided at that meeting.  It was there that we, as a group, came up
> > with the ideas around the outline you saw at the beginning of the
> > year.  The group came up with topics that they wanted to discuss in
> > more detail, and from which we might develop some tasks and activities.
>
> > Content contributions can be brought in many ways: attending the
> > meetings (virtual or face to face), responding during the IRC,
> > sending messages to the list serve, contributing to the wiki at
> > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Main_Page  We also have a LinkedIn group
> > for convenience, where people can also post ideas (W3C eGovernment
> > Interest Group at
> > http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1800648&trk=anet_ug_hm )
>
> > With Tomasz just being announced as co-chair, it's probably a great
> > time to be sure we are still in synch with the group.  Welcome to
> hearing your ideas!
>
> > --Jeanne
>
> > **********************************************************
> > Jeanne Holm
> > Evangelist, Data.gov
> > U.S. General Services Administration
> > Cell: (818) 434-5037
> > Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> > **********************************************************
>
> > From: Paola Di Maio
> > <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
> > Reply-To:
> > <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:19:12 +0100
> > To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>
> > Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
> > Subject: Re: whats the plan then?
> > Resent-From: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
> > Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:19:43 +0000
>
> > Phil
>
> > thanks for reply
>
> > I may not have welcomed/ congratulateD Tomasz on joining the team,
> > let me take the opportunity. (welcome Tomasz)
>
> > However I 'd to understand (urgently) , if this workgroup adopts a
> participatory practice, or not
>
> > if it does, it is not up to you nor to Tomasz to
> > make the roadmap, but up to each list member
> > If a list member does not contribute their ideas /opinions, or have
> > really nothing to say ever, I wonder why they have joined.
>
> > If the governance of this workgroup is by selected committee
> > (another elite?), then maybe this - at this stage -  is not  yet a
> > community of  self directed leaders I am hoping for :-)
>
> > I would like each member to contribute to the roadmap, and to hear
> > everybody's voice and opinion on every single issue, because now we
> > have the technology to do so.  Members who do not have anything to
> > say ever on anything are lurkers, not members,(imho)
>
> >  That's the e-governance I have in mind and I am interested in helping
> co-create......
>
> > Let me know if I should put my energies elsewhere :-)
>
> > P
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Phil Archer
> > <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
> > Paola,
>
> > Thanks for this timely message. As I hope you will have seen, the
> > group has a new co-chair, Tomasz Janowski, who will be working with
> > Jeanne, Sandro and I on this group. We are all aware of the need to
> > set out a rejuvenated roadmap - it's coming, and soon.
>
> > Phil.
>
>
> > On 24/04/2012 18:07, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> > Greetings, E-Gov SIG
>
> > I am reviewing my ability to make useful contributions to various
> > communities
> > for the next semester, as I am travelling a lot, I find it difficult
> > to attend conference calls . Apologies for not being more active.
> >  (pulling own ears)
>
> > I remain however interested in the topic, and realise I am not
> > sure who is on this group, and what are the goals of the memebers,
> > involvement with e-gov
> > and what can we learn from each other
>
> > Apologies if I have missed out on something
>
> > Can someone remind  please
>
> > where is the wiki where people can enter their contributions/suggestions
> > for talks/projects, our shared -participative agenda so to speak?
>
> > would it be a good idea if each group member (willing to do so) to
> > give a short talk  in forthcoming months (also just a few asynchronous
> > slides) to introduce themselves
> > what do they do and what do they would like to achieve with the
> > participation
> > in this community, so that we share some knowledge and learn from each
> > other?
>
> > I am working on distributed decision making processes for governance and
> > policy
> > and would be glad to know if there is anyone around with similar
> interests,
> > for example
> > s
>
> > Cheers
>
> > PDM
>
>
> > --
>
>
> > Phil Archer
> > W3C eGovernment
> > http://www.w3.org/egov/
>
> > http://philarcher.org
> > +44 (0)7887 767755<tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
> > @philarcher1
>
>