wrythings

Today I had the fortune of joining a group of civic entrepreneurs advancing data collaboration in Illinois. They introduced me to the 8 Principles of Open Government Data drafted in December 2007 at a California Summit. The Illinois effort - IDEA - Illinois Data Exchange Affiliates is concerned to promote civic engagement and better governance through collaborative data practices among non-profits/civic sector, research & planning efforts and all layers of government. This is where Digital Excellence meets eGovernment.

If Chicago is a world-class city in a leading region of the nation, what are we waiting for? If we are ready to embrace the information age I don’t know what could make us more globally competitive than to remove the artificial barriers to information exchange in city and county. I hear tell there is a committee on data sharing among departments of Chicago city government. I look forward to hearing what progress they have made thus far and how aggressive they intend to be with regard to unfolding a new era in accountability and transparency. Someone, ping Hardik.

Good data is about feedback. Feedback regulates an organism or process. Here it would inform individual choice and guide regional planning. We all know the Mayor loves to have city services on the ball when it comes to potholes and attention to the visible amenities. These eight principles would allow Chicago to set new benchmarks for service delivery and quality of life. You don’t have to be an XML geek to grok this.

Open Government Data Principles

Government data shall be considered open if it is made public in a way that complies with the principles below:

1. Complete
All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to valid privacy, security or privilege limitations.

2. Primary
Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms.

3. Timely
Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data.

4. Accessible
Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes.

5. Machine processable
Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing.

6. Non-discriminatory
Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration.

7. Non-proprietary
Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control.

8. License-free
Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.

Compliance must be reviewable.

The quote and context may be old news, but I just now happened upon this quote on Ellen Gill’s blog and thought it interesting…. here’s the full text:

The Bill of Rights is not a “suicide pact,” but an expression of courage and knowledge that courage is what it takes to keep a people free.~~From Ellen Gill’s letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times, December 29, 2005.

Tonight we convened the first Chicago Net Tuesday at “The Point” at 600 W. Chicago… thanks Aaron! We had a great turnout by Meet-Up standards… (somewhere around 30 people) … we’re shooting for the second Tuesday of each month.

The metaphor of the mash-up is perfect for our vision. We want to bring together the talents and assets and interests and needs of Chicago — Chicago techies and community activists, NPOs and others ready to give back to the community and grow the network. Fundamentally, our perspective is that while NPOs are addressing deep needs in the communities they serve, our city and the neighborhoods and professions and trades are full of resources and talents that we have but to put together in new and exciting ways. This has been my credo for some time … this perspective informed the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance and our campaign for Digital Excellence (in the context of the Citywide Wireless Initiative that wound up stalling out).

We started off the evening with an invitation to everyone to step up and join us as co-convenors for this effort going forward… we all introduced ourselves to the group and then we sunk our teeth into our first big question about what Chicago Non-Profit’s really need.

That is an important question, to be sure, but I’ve reached the point where I want to start from our strengths and assets. We need to figure out how to share our skills and talents. We don’t have to start from a scarcity mindset.

More important than the answers to the question we started with, or any alternative positive framing I might offer, is the question of conversation and story, and widening the circle of participants. What questions do we have to ask? What are the big questions that will open some real conversation for Chicago? Who do we address the big questions to? Can we ask ourselves the really hard questions?

For myself - the issue of new social technologies leaves me rather ambivalent. We have to start from our purposes, and not from the faddish new tools. We have to get clear about what we want for our city. Let our technology choices and investments stem from that vision.

G I O - Get Illinois Online. We’ve been hosting an email conversation for several years. Join the conversation.

Subscribe to GIO-Talk

Email:

Visit this group

There is also a more Chicago-centric mailing list, here:

Subscribe to GIO-Chicago

Email:

Visit this group

Join Us as Community Advocates & Web Innovators

Join us, so Chicago can grow more technology savvy social change organizations that benefit our local communities.

Staff and volunteers of non-profits, web innovators, and any individuals pushing for change are encouraged to attend. Come tell us about your effort, your concerns, and what you need and want from a collective of like-minded individuals and organizations.

“Net Tuesday” meetings are a program of NetSquared whose mission is to spur responsible adoption of social web tools by social benefit organizations.

NetSquared is a project of TechSoup (http://www.techsoup.org) the technology place for nonprofits.

RSVP to Aaron With at The Point, please, so we can be sure to have adequate refreshments for your enjoyment: aaron@thepoint.com or call 312.676.4535.

Public Transportation: 600 W. Chicago is a 4 block walk west from the Chicago stop on the Brown Line. The Chicago Avenue (#66) bus drops you off directly in front of the building at Larabee.

Parking Information: There is some limited free parking 1-2 blocks North on Larabee. Metered parking on Chicago 1-3 blocks East, though this is often taken. Paid parking across the street from our building costs $6 for under 2 hours and $8 for 2-4 hours..

Call Aaron at 312.676.4535, if you need information about getting to The Point.

Our first meeting will be hosted and sponsored by The Point, a new group action network that helps people congregate around the issues they care about and combine forces to make things happen.

Organizers:

Demetrio Maguigad, New Media Manager with Community Media Workshop at Columbia College, manages online new media projects, and also conducts community-based popular education workshops.

Michael Maranda - promoting digital excellence, media & social justice through purposive community.

David Marques is an IT Coordinator with the Southwest Youth Collaborative, a community-based youth services and activist agency.

Justin Massa is executive director of MoveSmart.org, a startup non-profit organization that promotes racial and economic integration through technology.

Jean Russell nurtures nonprofit leaders and weaves networks for social change (nurture.biz).

Aaron With is a Community Organizer for The Point and has a background working with Chicago non-profits.

Date: Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

Time: 6pm-7:30pm

Location: The Point

600 W. Chicago Ave, Suite 830

(entrance is North on Larabee)

Chicago, IL 60610

Co-convene with us.

UPDATE: We have a Meetup group (and a Facebook group)!

Josh Breitbart blogs a warning to all who seek digital inclusion or more (perhaps excellence) for their community, here: Horizontal vs. Hub-and-Spoke Relations, or The Emperor has no Invisible Thread. The bottom line: unless your city has character and backbone, and cares for the people, the people will be ill-served by the network they get.

There are no tangents in holistic approaches to technology and community, so please bear with me as I tug that thread metaphor in another important direction.

Robust networks/redundancy; generosity/capacity.

Consider this image (evoked by Breitbart’s commentary on the as-yet missing (but promised) invisible thread): Sidney J. Mussberger (the character in the Hudsucker Proxy played by Paul Newman) dangling upside down at the ledge of a skyscraper reflecting on the need for the robust redundancy of a double stitch as the seam at his waist begins to give.

Mussberger (Newman) reflects on his (stingy/cynical) scoffing at his tailor’s suggestion of the double-stitch for his hand-tailored trousers. When a single-stitch will do, why spend more? He regards the tailor’s suggestion as an unnecessary expense and worse, an attempt to rip him off.

(Warning: Minor spoiler!) Mussberger’s pants don’t give way at the moment he needs them to hold together most. The Tailor generously gave him the double-stitch anyway.

What lessons to draw?

Along with tying our communities together in many horizontal relations (Neff and Philadephia’s “invisible thread”), and assurances of digital inclusion and economic development benefits there are public safety needs related to these networks. (We should explore how horizontality in planning and design would strengthen those purposes.) Robust, redundant networks are critical to public safety. Or, consider the demonstrated value of a small cadre of community wireless networkers post Katrina. (The lesson there being, volunteer knowledge and technical capacity, and the freedom to act in the deployment of networks is just as critical.)

We are being promised a lot of things in the selling of broadband and wireless networks. We had best make sure we are getting what we pay for and that we are prepared to pay enough. I wouldn’t bank my hopes on the generosity of the network vendors. Get what you need and get it in writing, then get it verified. You don’t want to be left in regret or wonder when hanging by a thread.

Whether public or private and whatever the scope, there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

1. the ownership and business model,
2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.