Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
Locked
Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
 
|
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
Alex Howard, from Canada's advisory panel on open government, shares his recommendations to the government as a panelist in this blog post: http://e-pluribusunum.com/2014/02/05/canada-public-consultation-open-government-national-action-plan/
On 2014-02-03, at 2:23 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
First point Alex notes in his post was about e-petitions. Good news: Canada is going to do it. Kennedy's page on his e-petition motion: .. his Web site: .. why this is a big deal: And here's the vote in the House of Commons -- it passed! -- but it was close: On Feb 5, 2014, at 7:27 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
Awesome. The vote on OpenParliament.ca: http://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/43/
On 2014-02-05, at 8:17 PM, David Akin wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
I think e-petititions are good, but we must temper that with real consultations and sometimes targeted consultations with the public and specialist or stakeholder communities. Direct democracy of this nature can be problematic on real questions, one form of direct democracy we have all recently witnessed is a ballot question on same sex marriage, whereby a majority votes on a minority right. Imagine if that was done on the topic of allowing blacks to the lunch counter in 1950 US. This form of direct democracy is also problematic in Switzerland when it comes to citizenship decisions, the whole life of the applicant is on display in a community and the community votes on whether or not they are entitled to citizenship. Certain groups are persistently being refused irrespective of how long they have lived in a community and the good they have provided. Does a petition on anti choice mean we get to reopen debate?On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:07 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
I don't think anyone is suggesting that e-petitions replace all prior ways of engaging the public - having the house's policies for petitions take into account the internet is just a good development as far as petitions go. Petitions are not votes (unlike ballot questions) and have no decision-making power, so I don't see the link to direct democracy. Paper petitions were heavily weighted towards where the people distributing the signature sheets were located (urban areas) - I'd say e-petitions are an improvement in that respect. Re: what if a petition reopens a debate: I think that's just the price of democracy - look at the circus of the Charter of Quebec Values - we already went over that ground in 2007-2008 with the Bouchard-Taylor commission. The challenge with any popular mechanism like petitions is to prevent a motivated subset of the majority from oppressing a minority, while preserving the minority's ability to use that mechanism at all. Re: vote division, The conservatives consistently vote against non-conservative motions, even motions in committee to correct typographical or grammatical errors. On 2014-02-06, at 5:30 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
Hey James, CheersI am aware of all that, that was not the point, the point was that these objects, which I like, have a way of taking a life of their own, and all I am suggesting is that we promote dig ways to engage with the public and also real face time ways to engage with the public and consult. And I think you will agree that we are seeing twitter town halls, google hangouts comprised of mostly boys, who often do not even have open data or open gov expertise, and online processes that are clunky at best, instead of real stakeholders with subject matter expertise in a well moderated working group setting. Dig is easier than real meaningful consultation, we see more of the former and almost none of the latter. t On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
I agree that the federal government is no inspiration for good consultation practices, and that the moderated-stakeholder-experts model can be used more frequently; though I should add that it can't be the only model we use, and we shouldn't discount other models. The Google Hangouts are PR, not consultation. I'm not sure that Twitter town halls are being used for consultation - it's more about communications. Does the government ever use language to suggest that Twitter is a medium for consultation? I don't know if participation in Twitter town halls is more biased towards "boys" than other government communication mediums, I'd be curious to read analysis of that - Twitter on the whole is more or less balanced in terms of user population. In general, in-person meetings are no panacea; there are plenty of examples of poor practices, overrepresented groups, etc. there as well. On 2014-02-06, at 11:17 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
digital = dig of course on the moderated stakeholder comment, but hey, sometimes would be a start!On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:09 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
Giving ePetitions a voice in tandem with paper isn't a big change, other than potentially as a way to engage younger demographics with this type of method of mentioning an issue to government. That is a great thing. As someone who has coordinated petitions my experience has been that age is a larger divider than gender when trying to leverageing paper petitions as a "toe in the door" to more active participation in an issue. This is always how petitions should be seen: toe in the door. While a form-letter has to be tabled, there has never been a requirement for a parliamentary petition to actually be "responded" to in any meaningful way. The petitions I've coordinated had government replies that simply repeated the policies we were petitioning against, without acknowledging an understanding of the issues we were presenting. While it is true it would be better for more participation in democracy, lets not for a moment confuse a small change in how petitions can be presented as having much of an impact one way or the other on that larger issue. I also don't think lack of participation is a failure of government as much as it is a failure of citizenry, so don't think changes in government processes around petitions/consultations/etc will make much of a difference. Now, if we want to move away from parliamentary processes to educational policy.... I know it isn't politically correct to say this, but I have never believed in artificial external manipulation of demographics. If a given issue happens to be dominated by a gender (male or female -- and I've seen both), or dominated by an age, or dominated by a racial background, I don't consider it helpful to artificially "balance" things. I believe it causes the opposite to what people think it does: people who are otherwise not as strongly motivated by an issue being given a larger podium than they would otherwise gain causes harm to whatever the issue happens to be. Ensuring equal opportunity for participation is not the same as artificially mandating demographics. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
russel,
It is important that if there are competent females available for technology panels they should be sought after and there should be some sort of gender balance. At the moment things technology are heavily stacked with men and that discourages female participation, it also doe not give women a voice, and it says that techology is not for girls. The google hangouts were terrible, and some of the guys they had on them were gamers who did not even have subject matter expertise. the minister was thus saying that his work is about boy and men things, even if the men do not even have the prerequisite knowledge, it is ok cuz their guys, and not about things women care about, which you know is absolutely not the case.
The push back with commercials for girls about pink games or the lack of girl characters in leggo and cool science and make adds for girls is part of that. girls and women in the male dominated gaming community are also under attack. so for a whole, we need to support and sponsor and seek out women capable of doing good work in this space, and not only have bro spaces.
If we have conferences, then we can aim to seek out competent and knowledgeable females. On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Russell McOrmond <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
http://boingboing.net/2014/02/02/seven-year-old-girl-tells-lego.html
On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: russel, -- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Scassa review of the OGP IRM report blogpost
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
I definitely echo Tracey here. This isn't about artificially pumping up a demographic - it is about getting a range of perspectives. The fact is, I don't often think or worry about getting stalked online, nor have I been threatened with rape or worse for opinions I have online - sadly I know women who have and having that (and other) views of our society shape the discourse around tech is important not just to encourage more diverse participation but to create tools that serve the diversity of needs we have and not be predisposed to help one sub-segment. -- @daeaves Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |