maybe OT - values of CivicAccess

[Michael Lenczner]

Hey all,

Since we started CA, the question of common goals / values has been a
question.   I'm don't think it needs to be 100% clear but I'm glad we
haven't assumed consensus on issues that haven't been explored, and
I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have the same values or
strategies for social change.  I think everyone is pretty cool with
the idea that there's people from different places on the political
spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to work on this
specific goal of access to civic info and data.

I wanted to share my concern about another issue. I've been picking up
on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited about data-driven
decision making.  I wonder how true that is.  Personally I get
concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around access to data.
There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it that kinda freaks
me out.

I can imagine us often making better decisions with access to more
data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions by relying too
much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is that access to
information is a justice issue.  I don't think it is just that we
don't have access to our own civic information, and I think that we
would have a more just society if access to these resources were
opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in itself for me and
secondarily I'm excited about issues of transparency in terms of the
relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven decision making
(ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority for me.  Down
further still is the goal of increased efficiency.

I don't necessarily respect the evaluation + management tools that are
currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I would not be
comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of those tools by
our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties around the
production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of it for me not to
be ambivalent about encouraging their use.

That being said, I respect that there are others that have a different
set of priorities for being here and I'm not trying to convince
anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work together on the question
of access and possibilities for disseminating and using that
info/data.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but Hugh posted  a video by
the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.  It points to
some difficulties of making decisions from a distanced, solely
quantitative knowledge of an issue.
via Hugh's blog
http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml

Hope that made sense.

Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that we've developed a respectful
culture here.  No flaming and there's a good dialogue between new
people, technical experts and policy experts.  Congrats for us.  :-)

[Hugh McGuire-2]

mike,

one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's police chief  
promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all crime by  
40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such success? By  
changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies became  
robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a data-shell  
game, but murders did not go down because you can't hide the bodies.  
In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were recorded.

Re justice: I think broadly I would equate "justice" with good  
decision-making. That is, when societies make more of the kinds of  
decisions that improve people's lives, it makes for a more just  
society. And by opening up data to people I expect us to have "better"  
decisions, hence more justice.

The thing about opening up data is that people who care can and will  
look at the data, at the methods, at the background, and I think/hope  
it will be harder to hide bullshit behind numbers if the data is open,  
and the methodologies are known.

It would be interesting to track this particular hypothesis though ...

Right now, if all you get is a police statement that crime is going  
down, and a pdf with "stats" to prove it ... you don't have much to go  
on. If you get the whole dataset, it's a different matter.

So if you open things up, you are likely to have more statistical  
damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is that the  
checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.

But it's an interesting caution.

h.


On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Since we started CA, the question of common goals / values has been a
> question.   I'm don't think it needs to be 100% clear but I'm glad we
> haven't assumed consensus on issues that haven't been explored, and
> I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have the same values or
> strategies for social change.  I think everyone is pretty cool with
> the idea that there's people from different places on the political
> spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to work on this
> specific goal of access to civic info and data.
>
> I wanted to share my concern about another issue. I've been picking up
> on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited about data-driven
> decision making.  I wonder how true that is.  Personally I get
> concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around access to data.
> There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it that kinda freaks
> me out.
>
> I can imagine us often making better decisions with access to more
> data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions by relying too
> much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is that access to
> information is a justice issue.  I don't think it is just that we
> don't have access to our own civic information, and I think that we
> would have a more just society if access to these resources were
> opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in itself for me and
> secondarily I'm excited about issues of transparency in terms of the
> relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven decision making
> (ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority for me.  Down
> further still is the goal of increased efficiency.
>
> I don't necessarily respect the evaluation + management tools that are
> currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I would not be
> comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of those tools by
> our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties around the
> production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of it for me not to
> be ambivalent about encouraging their use.
>
> That being said, I respect that there are others that have a different
> set of priorities for being here and I'm not trying to convince
> anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work together on the question
> of access and possibilities for disseminating and using that
> info/data.
>
> I've been thinking about this for a while, but Hugh posted  a video by
> the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.  It points to
> some difficulties of making decisions from a distanced, solely
> quantitative knowledge of an issue.
> via Hugh's blog
> http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml
>
> Hope that made sense.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that we've developed a respectful
> culture here.  No flaming and there's a good dialogue between new
> people, technical experts and policy experts.  Congrats for us.  :-)
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Jennifer Bell]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I think it's a linked chain: open government data will lead to increased citizen involvement, which will lead to improvements in efficiency almost by definition.

Jennifer Bell
VisibleGovernment.ca

--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:59 PM
> mike,
>
> one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's
> police chief  
> promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all
> crime by  
> 40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such
> success? By  
> changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies
> became  
> robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a
> data-shell  
> game, but murders did not go down because you can't
> hide the bodies.  
> In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were
> recorded.
>
> Re justice: I think broadly I would equate
> "justice" with good  
> decision-making. That is, when societies make more of the
> kinds of  
> decisions that improve people's lives, it makes for a
> more just  
> society. And by opening up data to people I expect us to
> have "better"  
> decisions, hence more justice.
>
> The thing about opening up data is that people who care can
> and will  
> look at the data, at the methods, at the background, and I
> think/hope  
> it will be harder to hide bullshit behind numbers if the
> data is open,  
> and the methodologies are known.
>
> It would be interesting to track this particular hypothesis
> though ...
>
> Right now, if all you get is a police statement that crime
> is going  
> down, and a pdf with "stats" to prove it ... you
> don't have much to go  
> on. If you get the whole dataset, it's a different
> matter.
>
> So if you open things up, you are likely to have more
> statistical  
> damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is
> that the  
> checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.
>
> But it's an interesting caution.
>
> h.
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Since we started CA, the question of common goals /
> values has been a
> > question.   I'm don't think it needs to be
> 100% clear but I'm glad we
> > haven't assumed consensus on issues that
> haven't been explored, and
> > I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have
> the same values or
> > strategies for social change.  I think everyone is
> pretty cool with
> > the idea that there's people from different places
> on the political
> > spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to
> work on this
> > specific goal of access to civic info and data.
> >
> > I wanted to share my concern about another issue.
> I've been picking up
> > on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited
> about data-driven
> > decision making.  I wonder how true that is.
> Personally I get
> > concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around
> access to data.
> > There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it
> that kinda freaks
> > me out.
> >
> > I can imagine us often making better decisions with
> access to more
> > data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions
> by relying too
> > much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is
> that access to
> > information is a justice issue.  I don't think it
> is just that we
> > don't have access to our own civic information,
> and I think that we
> > would have a more just society if access to these
> resources were
> > opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in
> itself for me and
> > secondarily I'm excited about issues of
> transparency in terms of the
> > relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven
> decision making
> > (ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority
> for me.  Down
> > further still is the goal of increased efficiency.
> >
> > I don't necessarily respect the evaluation +
> management tools that are
> > currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I
> would not be
> > comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of
> those tools by
> > our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties
> around the
> > production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of
> it for me not to
> > be ambivalent about encouraging their use.
> >
> > That being said, I respect that there are others that
> have a different
> > set of priorities for being here and I'm not
> trying to convince
> > anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work
> together on the question
> > of access and possibilities for disseminating and
> using that
> > info/data.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this for a while, but
> Hugh posted  a video by
> > the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.
>  It points to
> > some difficulties of making decisions from a
> distanced, solely
> > quantitative knowledge of an issue.
> > via Hugh's blog
> > http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml
> >
> > Hope that made sense.
> >
> > Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that
> we've developed a respectful
> > culture here.  No flaming and there's a good
> dialogue between new
> > people, technical experts and policy experts.
> Congrats for us.  :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

      __________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail.  Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca

[Robin Millette]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 14:31, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand the question, but I think it's a linked chain: open government data will lead to increased citizen involvement, which will lead to improvements in efficiency almost by definition.

But, like stats, data can be made to say just about anything. An
important part of this process is knowing the source of the data,
validating it, scrutinizing it, even collecting our own.

[Jennifer Bell]

I think we agree: the trick is to get the right data.
 
As an example, I was sent this article a few months ago by an economist.  It's an interesting view on how some key US economic indicators in government reporting were unilaterally re-defined in the 90s, with a) hardly anyone noticing, and b) potentially disastrous results:
 
http://www.weedenco.com/welling/Downloads/2006/0804welling022106.pdf
 
The take of the article is that the indicators were re-defined specifically so that the govt. could keep on reporting rosy numbers.  Access to raw data, and forums where people who disagree can voice their opinion, is a step in the right direction.

Jennifer
VisibleGovernment.ca
 

> --- On Wed, 11/19/08, Robin Millette
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > From: Robin Millette <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values
> of CivicAccess
> > To: [hidden email], "civicaccess
> discuss" <[hidden email]>
> > Received: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 3:56 PM
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 14:31, Jennifer Bell
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I
> > think it's a linked chain: open government data
> will
> > lead to increased citizen involvement, which will lead
> to
> > improvements in efficiency almost by definition.
> >
> > But, like stats, data can be made to say just about
> > anything. An
> > important part of this process is knowing the source
> of the
> > data,
> > validating it, scrutinizing it, even collecting our
> own.
>
>
>      
> __________________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/

      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now.  Sorry for the long windedness, but I think it is a really important question, one that has plagued my work as someone who works with data, maps, social organizations and developing indicators for years.

The cult of efficiency (http://www.philia.ca/cms_en/page1258.cfm) combined with the imposition of the cult of accountability stemming from a business/social entrepreneurship model being imposed on the social sector, education, health and overseas development have had disturbing effects. These are neoliberal shifts in our society that started to appear in the days of cut backs (late 80s early 90s), where people were made to believe that government should operate like a business and social services started to get outsourced to the private sector - reprivatization combined with foundations starting to think of their donors as shareholders, financial scandals in the public service making bureaucrats risk averse to fears of mis-spending,  and Canadians being made to believe that overseas development money was being mis-spent have spawned the context of evaluation and accountability we are currently living with.  Remember the "common sense revolution" of the Harris government!  Social sector and advocacy organizations have been suffering from this socially and fiscally conservative ideology ever since, and organizations like the united way have become social engineers picking up on the public social services the government dropped!  Think of the manufacturing of a health crisis by severe cut backs, or our degrading public school system as money keeps being siphoned out of it while "reporting outcomes" have increased.  But I digress!

Evaluation and accountability processes in and of themselves are not bad things, however, with a lack of time and money, the easy, identifiable, measurable, tangible ways of assessing if an organization has been successful in doing what it said and was funded to do wins out over a more subtle, way of understanding social change, culture and well being.  This is not the fault of data and positivism this is the fault of our limited way of thinking about ensuring that organizations are doing what they intended, having the impact they claimed they would have in their funding proposals with the money they received and the social & cultural contexts within which those same organizations have to operate.  This is a methodological failure of evaluation, since qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate and measure are complementary and necessary.  But alas! People want the tangible and obvious and find the subtle and intangible, which often is where the richness of social change lies too whishy washy and also these are most difficult and expensive processes to implement and try to understand.  This demonstrates the weakness of positivist methods absent from the qualitative, both however yield data, data of a different kind, but data nonetheless.

What I have learned over that past few years and am still learning is that indicators are rascally, none will ever tell you the story, none are perfect and all are loaded with limitations, they need to be wrapped in context, and no social factor can be determined by a single measure or factor, they are complex and multifaceted.  A thermometer will tell you your temperature, this number remains only an indicator that something may be off, it does not tell you what the illness is.  You need your intuition, knowledge of the child, training as a doctor, etc. to tell you what the illness is.  And in some cases more tests.  Intuition however comes from prior learning, knowledge, and experience.  I do not want intuited assessments in the absence of learning, knowledge, and experience which in the medical field comes from lots of research and lots of data.  I do not want inexperienced uninformed speculative guesses and speculation.  Unfortunately in the social sector our politicians have such a lack of knowledge or a loathing for good social science that they will make decisions in the social sector based on their ideologies in the absence of facts.  Lets think of the pope promoting abstinence as a form of birth control, how aids research was thwarted because it was ideologically framed as a gay mans disease and we still promote abstinence in Africa!  Needle exchange programs fall under the same debate in my neighbourhood right now, the social science, the neighbours, health practitioners, social workers and politicians are at odds.

The best data, for instance to understand the causes of some types of homelessness are mental health, addiction, spousal abuse but those data are derived from self reporting surveys, are not collected, are kept in private health organizations or in the hands of family shelter and abused women's shelters who do not label those they serve as homeless, are inconsistently captured, or are trapped in our statistical agencies.  In other cases the best data for other types of homelessness, would be demographics and stories from people who find themselves in these shelters, how did they get there, how old are they, do they have children, racial and ethnic profiles, where did they live before finding themselves in the shelter etc.  These data are barely collected and when they are the agency that does capture these will not share them - HIFIS.  So we are left with guessing and political apathy on the issue.  Recently I heard that new Canadians when they first arrive are predominantly renters, but after being in Canada for some time, are disproportionally higher relative to the rest of the population of being home owners.  However, whey they are homeowners, they are often paying way over 50% of their income on a mortgage again relative to the rest of the population.  This is of course only for some immigrants, as some come from cultures where renting is the norm yet overall this was the picture that was painted for me.  So i ordered 3 data sets from Statistics Canada that would allow me to assess the validity of that story.  The cost of those datasets was 60 000$.  Our grant was 50 000$, with 5 000$ eaten up by endless reporting to the funding agency on progress.  Needless to say, we did not acquire those data and wound up not telling that story at all since the proxy indicators were not at all suitable and we would have speculated with numbers on a topic that can easily be mis-framed.

Alternatively, the Ontario Medical Health association did a Cost to the Health Care System study of Poor Air Quality.  A staggering study, which still has us banning cigarettes but not improving public transport, creating cleaner cars, changing our construction patterns, or making sure those oil refineries have better smoke stacks, etc.  There is a case where the data support radically changing how we consume and transport ourselves, but we decided to not listen to them.  Yesterday a young lady going to a community college came to talk to me at GIS day, she lives in a rural area and wanted to do a demographic trend analysis of youth leaving rural areas using GIS.  Her community college is not a member of the Data Liberation Initiative so she will not have access to the data in her college to do this study.  She can however go to the US and chose a rural area there and conduct the same study in well, in this case, not the right place - the data are a public record and are free in the US.  Our young minds who want to learn are impeded by doing so!  What is that cost in the long run?  We dunno cuz we do not collect that kind of data nor support studies to figure that out.  My hunch is ignorance is always expensive in more ways than one.

So, when I talk about access to data, I am talking both quantitative and qualitative, I am also talking about accurate, authentic and reliable datasets captured using good methods.  I am also talking about, data to back up hunches and intuition or to confirm or dismiss speculations.  I also want public spending to be backed up with data and information and not ideology as we have seen.  These data though can be from public consultations or the census depending on the nature of the issue at hand.  I am also talking about public education about how to inform decisions and having the means to inform those decisions.  Further, I want to have a conversation with public officials, the private sector, and some NGOs on a level playing field, which is hard to do when they have a monopoly on the data and information.  I also, want a culture of secrecy, fear and risk adverseness to change to one of sharing, co-learning and dialogue.

That is why I love civicaccess.ca because I think each in our own way using our different lenses are having that conversation

Cheers
t.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey all,

Since we started CA, the question of common goals / values has been a
question.   I'm don't think it needs to be 100% clear but I'm glad we
haven't assumed consensus on issues that haven't been explored, and
I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have the same values or
strategies for social change.  I think everyone is pretty cool with
the idea that there's people from different places on the political
spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to work on this
specific goal of access to civic info and data.

I wanted to share my concern about another issue. I've been picking up
on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited about data-driven
decision making.  I wonder how true that is.  Personally I get
concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around access to data.
There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it that kinda freaks
me out.

I can imagine us often making better decisions with access to more
data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions by relying too
much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is that access to
information is a justice issue.  I don't think it is just that we
don't have access to our own civic information, and I think that we
would have a more just society if access to these resources were
opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in itself for me and
secondarily I'm excited about issues of transparency in terms of the
relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven decision making
(ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority for me.  Down
further still is the goal of increased efficiency.

I don't necessarily respect the evaluation + management tools that are
currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I would not be
comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of those tools by
our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties around the
production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of it for me not to
be ambivalent about encouraging their use.

That being said, I respect that there are others that have a different
set of priorities for being here and I'm not trying to convince
anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work together on the question
of access and possibilities for disseminating and using that
info/data.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but Hugh posted  a video by
the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.  It points to
some difficulties of making decisions from a distanced, solely
quantitative knowledge of an issue.
via Hugh's blog
http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml

Hope that made sense.

Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that we've developed a respectful
culture here.  No flaming and there's a good dialogue between new
people, technical experts and policy experts.  Congrats for us.  :-)
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault

[Michael Lenczner]

I'm responding to Hugh's post because I'm concerned that my point
being mischaracterized.

I didn't email as a caution to this group.  I am not trying to
convince anybody else that they should share my mistrust is of the
practices of data-driven decision making although I liked Tracey's
email and I appreciate Robin's point of the manipulablility of data.

I was writing specifically to say that I don't give blanket support to
the premise of better decisions through access more data.  I think
that practice is a very political one which can and has been used by
people who's agenda I disagree with.  I think assuming that we all
support that practice makes CA political in a way that we haven't
specifically agreed to. (Not trying to say that CA shouldn't be
political.  It is and it should be.  But in ways that are explicit and
agreed upon.)

A perfect example is Ibelieveinopen's second pledge. (
http://ibelieveinopen.ca/about/ )

"2. Make campaign promises specific and measurable, and report
progress on promises and their metrics at least semi-annually.

At work, most ordinary citizens have regular performance reviews.
These reviews chart progress that has been made on specific goals.
With Members of Parliament, and the government in general, tracking
performance is difficult because promises made during election time
are usually neither specific nor measurable.

In honouring this pledge, Members of Parliament must publish a
timeline for achieving their promises, along with specific metrics
that can be used to judge whether or not a promise has been kept."

It seems like a neutral point, but personally I do support this part
of the pledge.  I respect the thoughts of people who would and I'm
happy to ally with them on the question of getting access to
information, but I do not want my participation here to be construed
as support for this type of policy.  It doesn't correspond to my
politics.

And it doesn't correspond to my philosophy either (if that's a
possible distinction).  I don't really have a lot of belief in the
concept of "raw data".  I don't believe that data is a neutral object
around which different stakeholders will be forced to leave their
ideologies aside. .   I think it can have play that role (of a
boundary object (thanks for that term, Tracey)) sometimes, but I
respond much more to Tracey's comment "Further, I want to have a
conversation with public officials, the private sector, and some NGOs
on a level playing field, which is hard to do when they have a
monopoly on the data and information.".  I would like to empower
people who don't have access to data to be able to employ data in
their own ways to reflect their own agendas and ideologies.  If, for
questions of having less resources, you don't have access to the
numbers that someone else is using to construct arguments, your
ability to respond is limited.

I don't think we're here because we share a concern about government
waste.  There are other groups and other spaces for that.   I don't
think we should be here because we want to suggest alternative
management practices for the government or because we all agree that
want to see innovative new solutions to social problems.  There are
other spaces for that as well (someone can make a WorldChanging for
Canada).  And I don't think we're here to support my goal of
empowering the social sector.  I think we're here because we share a
desire to change practices and policies around *access to information
and data*.  I think that's enough for us to accomplish wonderful work
as a community.  And accomplishing that specific goal can help us work
separately on whatever other agendas we care about and want to
promote.

Hope that makes sense.  And I've very much valued the other emails on
this topic.

mike



On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike,
>
> one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's police chief
> promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all crime by
> 40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such success? By
> changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies became
> robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a data-shell
> game, but murders did not go down because you can't hide the bodies.
> In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were recorded.
>
> Re justice: I think broadly I would equate "justice" with good
> decision-making. That is, when societies make more of the kinds of
> decisions that improve people's lives, it makes for a more just
> society. And by opening up data to people I expect us to have "better"
> decisions, hence more justice.
>
> The thing about opening up data is that people who care can and will
> look at the data, at the methods, at the background, and I think/hope
> it will be harder to hide bullshit behind numbers if the data is open,
> and the methodologies are known.
>
> It would be interesting to track this particular hypothesis though ...
>
> Right now, if all you get is a police statement that crime is going
> down, and a pdf with "stats" to prove it ... you don't have much to go
> on. If you get the whole dataset, it's a different matter.
>
> So if you open things up, you are likely to have more statistical
> damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is that the
> checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.
>
> But it's an interesting caution.
>
> h.
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Since we started CA, the question of common goals / values has been a
>> question.   I'm don't think it needs to be 100% clear but I'm glad we
>> haven't assumed consensus on issues that haven't been explored, and
>> I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have the same values or
>> strategies for social change.  I think everyone is pretty cool with
>> the idea that there's people from different places on the political
>> spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to work on this
>> specific goal of access to civic info and data.
>>
>> I wanted to share my concern about another issue. I've been picking up
>> on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited about data-driven
>> decision making.  I wonder how true that is.  Personally I get
>> concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around access to data.
>> There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it that kinda freaks
>> me out.
>>
>> I can imagine us often making better decisions with access to more
>> data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions by relying too
>> much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is that access to
>> information is a justice issue.  I don't think it is just that we
>> don't have access to our own civic information, and I think that we
>> would have a more just society if access to these resources were
>> opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in itself for me and
>> secondarily I'm excited about issues of transparency in terms of the
>> relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven decision making
>> (ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority for me.  Down
>> further still is the goal of increased efficiency.
>>
>> I don't necessarily respect the evaluation + management tools that are
>> currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I would not be
>> comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of those tools by
>> our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties around the
>> production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of it for me not to
>> be ambivalent about encouraging their use.
>>
>> That being said, I respect that there are others that have a different
>> set of priorities for being here and I'm not trying to convince
>> anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work together on the question
>> of access and possibilities for disseminating and using that
>> info/data.
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for a while, but Hugh posted  a video by
>> the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.  It points to
>> some difficulties of making decisions from a distanced, solely
>> quantitative knowledge of an issue.
>> via Hugh's blog
>> http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml
>>
>> Hope that made sense.
>>
>> Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that we've developed a respectful
>> culture here.  No flaming and there's a good dialogue between new
>> people, technical experts and policy experts.  Congrats for us.  :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike,
>
> one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's police chief
> promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all crime by
> 40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such success? By
> changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies became
> robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a data-shell
> game, but murders did not go down because you can't hide the bodies.
> In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were recorded.
>
> Re justice: I think broadly I would equate "justice" with good
> decision-making. That is, when societies make more of the kinds of
> decisions that improve people's lives, it makes for a more just
> society. And by opening up data to people I expect us to have "better"
> decisions, hence more justice.
>
> The thing about opening up data is that people who care can and will
> look at the data, at the methods, at the background, and I think/hope
> it will be harder to hide bullshit behind numbers if the data is open,
> and the methodologies are known.
>
> It would be interesting to track this particular hypothesis though ...
>
> Right now, if all you get is a police statement that crime is going
> down, and a pdf with "stats" to prove it ... you don't have much to go
> on. If you get the whole dataset, it's a different matter.
>
> So if you open things up, you are likely to have more statistical
> damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is that the
> checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.
>
> But it's an interesting caution.
>
> h.
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Since we started CA, the question of common goals / values has been a
>> question.   I'm don't think it needs to be 100% clear but I'm glad we
>> haven't assumed consensus on issues that haven't been explored, and
>> I'm glad that we don't assume that we all have the same values or
>> strategies for social change.  I think everyone is pretty cool with
>> the idea that there's people from different places on the political
>> spectrum, and that we are well off coming together to work on this
>> specific goal of access to civic info and data.
>>
>> I wanted to share my concern about another issue. I've been picking up
>> on a perceived idea that we're all equally excited about data-driven
>> decision making.  I wonder how true that is.  Personally I get
>> concerned by a lot of imagined practices I see around access to data.
>> There's a whole positivist / empiricist side to it that kinda freaks
>> me out.
>>
>> I can imagine us often making better decisions with access to more
>> data, but I can also imagine us making worse decisions by relying too
>> much on that practice.  The reason I'm here is that access to
>> information is a justice issue.  I don't think it is just that we
>> don't have access to our own civic information, and I think that we
>> would have a more just society if access to these resources were
>> opened up.  Redressing that injustice is a goal in itself for me and
>> secondarily I'm excited about issues of transparency in terms of the
>> relation between citizen and government.  Data-driven decision making
>> (ie: better decision) is farther down as a priority for me.  Down
>> further still is the goal of increased efficiency.
>>
>> I don't necessarily respect the evaluation + management tools that are
>> currently being pushed on the non-profit sector and I would not be
>> comfortable with promoting more single-minded use of those tools by
>> our public bodies.  There's too many difficulties around the
>> production of knowledge (data) and useful framing of it for me not to
>> be ambivalent about encouraging their use.
>>
>> That being said, I respect that there are others that have a different
>> set of priorities for being here and I'm not trying to convince
>> anybody.  I'm glad that we are here to work together on the question
>> of access and possibilities for disseminating and using that
>> info/data.
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for a while, but Hugh posted  a video by
>> the journalist behind the Wire that prompted my email.  It points to
>> some difficulties of making decisions from a distanced, solely
>> quantitative knowledge of an issue.
>> via Hugh's blog
>> http://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/webcast_Simon.shtml
>>
>> Hope that made sense.
>>
>> Since I'm on the topic, I'm glad that we've developed a respectful
>> culture here.  No flaming and there's a good dialogue between new
>> people, technical experts and policy experts.  Congrats for us.  :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

[Michael Lenczner]

Oops.  I forgot a "not"  :-)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It seems like a neutral point, but personally I do ___not___ support this part
> of the pledge.  I respect the thoughts of people who would and I'm
> happy to ally with them on the question of getting access to
> information, but I do not want my participation here to be construed
> as support for this type of policy.


And I hope this isn't being perceived as overly critical.  I initially
resisted using this as an example, but I was concerned about my
ability to make my point understood.  My hat is off to Jennifer for
the wonderful work she did getting access to info raised as an issue
in the last elections.

mike

[catherine]

Hi all,

A friend of mine needs a list of all provincial elections candidates for
the Greater Montreal region and their bureau email coordinates for an
awareness campaign his non-profit wants to do in the coming week. I have
searched the usual suspects and while, for example, the Web site of the
Dirction général des élections du Québec offers this page :

http://www.monvote.qc.ca/fr/candidat_recherche.asp

... since I do not know all the riding names of the region, I find it
difficult to interrogate the tool. And it does not offer coordinates.

Can someone point me to something better ?


Catherine


--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net

[Jennifer Bell]

Hi Michael,

I'm curious: what makes you think the values of Civic Access are being shanghied?

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but regarding 'I Believe in Open', that particular pledge came from a personal experience I had in University.  I voted for a party based on a promise I thought had been made, which was then never implemented.  At the next election, there was no mechanism for me to understand what had happened with the promise, or why it had not been followed through on.  While there may have been good reasons for it not being kept, the lack of easily-accessable information made me mistrustful of the process of politics in general.  

The way I saw that pledge being implemented was as a concrete system for capturing and reporting on election promises.  Part of that reporting could include a 'why not' section, so that at least people would be able to understand the reasons -- and so are perhaps less likely to become dissilusioned with their representatives.

Generally, with 'I Believe in Open' we were (and are) trying to appeal to a general voter.  I had at least one radio interview where that pledge was all the interviewer wanted to talk about... they didn't really understand or care about the access to data issue.

About 8% of voters, like you, did not agree with that particular pledge, which is reflected in our statistics.  Interestingly, almost all of the politicians who replied agreed.

Jennifer Bell
http://visiblegovernment.ca

--- On Thu, 11/20/08, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:12 PM
> Oops.  I forgot a "not"  :-)
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael Lenczner
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It seems like a neutral point, but personally I do
> ___not___ support this part
> > of the pledge.  I respect the thoughts of people who
> would and I'm
> > happy to ally with them on the question of getting
> access to
> > information, but I do not want my participation here
> to be construed
> > as support for this type of policy.
>
>
> And I hope this isn't being perceived as overly
> critical.  I initially
> resisted using this as an example, but I was concerned
> about my
> ability to make my point understood.  My hat is off to
> Jennifer for
> the wonderful work she did getting access to info raised as
> an issue
> in the last elections.
>
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

      __________________________________________________________________
Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/

[Ilona Dougherty]

Catherine,

Apathy is Boring has compiled a list of all the candidates running the quebec election and their email addresses.

It is not 100% complete yet but it is a good start.

I am happy to share that with your friend if that would be helpful.

It is a long and painful process, one which we do every election by searching on party websites etc.

If anyone has any ideas about how to more efficiently collect that information let me know we would REALLY appreciate it.

This currently eats up a lot of staff time.

Best,

Ilona

Ilona Dougherty

[e-mail]

Executive Director :: directrice générale   

Apathy is Boring :: L'Apathie C'est Plate

514.844.AisB (2472) :: 1.877.744.2472

10 Pins W. #412 :: Montreal, QC :: H2W 1P9 

www.apathyisboring.com / www.lapathiecestplate.com

Apathy is Boring uses art and technology to engage youth in democracy. Help support our work!

http://www.apathyisboring.com/en/about_us/donate

« L’apathie c’est plate » passe par l’art et la technologie dans le but de sensibiliser les jeunes sur la démocratie. Aidez-nous à faire notre travail!

http://www.apathyisboring.com/fr/about_us/donate

On 21-Nov-08, at 1:23 PM, zara wrote:

Hi all,

A friend of mine needs a list of all provincial elections candidates for

the Greater Montreal region and their bureau email coordinates for an

awareness campaign his non-profit wants to do in the coming week. I have

searched the usual suspects and while, for example, the Web site of the

Dirction général des élections du Québec offers this page :

http://www.monvote.qc.ca/fr/candidat_recherche.asp

... since I do not know all the riding names of the region, I find it

difficult to interrogate the tool. And it does not offer coordinates.

Can someone point me to something better ?

Catherine

-- 

Catherine Roy

http://www.catherine-roy.net

_______________________________________________

CivicAccess-discuss mailing list

[hidden email]

http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Hugh McGuire-2]

> I'm curious: what makes you think the values of Civic Access are  
> being shanghied?
not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a concern that  
values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied. rather a desire to  
recognize that the collection of people her come from different  
philosophical and practical angles.

strangely, though I know michael well, i never really understood why  
my particular concern about open data -- that is, "better decision-
making" -- was not michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got  
what his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question of  
justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same benefits from  
the government, not just corporates who can afford to pay high feeds  
for government data.

that makes for a very different take on things, as does a desire for  
more efficiency, better tax/spending accountability etc.

they are all different reasons for being interested in civic access  
issues ...

so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll instead say what I think  
about all this: the issue of civic access is important enough that a  
broad coalition of people/groups can support it, without having to  
agree on the reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but  
we should also remember that the group here spans the political and  
philosophical spectrum.



 

[Christopher D. Ritter]

California had an issue arise from the recent US Election whereby the residents repealed Issue 8 that allowed homosexuals to legally marry. The first issue was the way in which the data was presented, leading many to believe that homosexually would be openly taught in public school systems. The second issue was the fact that the entire state voted on the rights of a small percentage of the population.

I would like to believe that a more educated and evolved form of Democracy would eliminate similar issues in the future, but in many ways I agree that these problems might simply be exacerbated when the data is not only Openly Available to everyone, but Openly Votable by everyone as well.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm curious: what makes you think the values of Civic Access are
> being shanghied?

not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a concern that
values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied. rather a desire to
recognize that the collection of people her come from different
philosophical and practical angles.

strangely, though I know michael well, i never really understood why
my particular concern about open data -- that is, "better decision-
making" -- was not michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got
what his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question of
justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same benefits from
the government, not just corporates who can afford to pay high feeds
for government data.

that makes for a very different take on things, as does a desire for
more efficiency, better tax/spending accountability etc.

they are all different reasons for being interested in civic access
issues ...

so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll instead say what I think
about all this: the issue of civic access is important enough that a
broad coalition of people/groups can support it, without having to
agree on the reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but
we should also remember that the group here spans the political and
philosophical spectrum.

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Christopher D. Ritter
User Experience Designer
[hidden email]

Visit Critteropolis Today!
critteropolis.myminicity.com

[catherine]

Thanks Ilona ! That is very generous :)

Please contact me off list ([hidden email]) to follow up ?


Catherine


--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net


On Fri, November 21, 2008 3:15 pm, Ilona Dougherty wrote:

> Catherine,
>
> Apathy is Boring has compiled a list of all the candidates running
> the quebec election and their email addresses.
> It is not 100% complete yet but it is a good start.
> I am happy to share that with your friend if that would be helpful.
>
> It is a long and painful process, one which we do every election by
> searching on party websites etc.
> If anyone has any ideas about how to more efficiently collect that
> information let me know we would REALLY appreciate it.
> This currently eats up a lot of staff time.
>
> Best,
>
> Ilona
>
> Ilona Dougherty
> [hidden email]
>
> Executive Director :: directrice générale
>
> Apathy is Boring :: L'Apathie C'est Plate
> 514.844.AisB (2472) :: 1.877.744.2472
> 10 Pins W. #412 :: Montreal, QC :: H2W 1P9
>
> www.apathyisboring.com / www.lapathiecestplate.com
>
> Apathy is Boring uses art and technology to engage youth in
> democracy. Help support our work!
> http://www.apathyisboring.com/en/about_us/donate
>
> « L’apathie c’est plate » passe par l’art et la technologie dans le
> but de sensibiliser les jeunes sur la démocratie. Aidez-nous à faire
> notre travail!
> http://www.apathyisboring.com/fr/about_us/donate
>
> On 21-Nov-08, at 1:23 PM, zara wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A friend of mine needs a list of all provincial elections
>> candidates for
>> the Greater Montreal region and their bureau email coordinates for an
>> awareness campaign his non-profit wants to do in the coming week. I
>> have
>> searched the usual suspects and while, for example, the Web site of
>> the
>> Dirction général des élections du Québec offers this page :
>>
>> http://www.monvote.qc.ca/fr/candidat_recherche.asp
>>
>> ... since I do not know all the riding names of the region, I find it
>> difficult to interrogate the tool. And it does not offer coordinates.
>>
>> Can someone point me to something better ?
>>
>>
>> Catherine
>>
>>
>> --
>> Catherine Roy
>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>
>>

[Jennifer Bell]

I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of backgrounds was being ignored before?

I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this thread...

Jennifer
visiblegovernment.ca

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess
> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM
> > I'm curious: what makes you think the values of
> Civic Access are being shanghied?
> not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a
> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied.
> rather a desire to recognize that the collection of people
> her come from different philosophical and practical angles.
>
> strangely, though I know michael well, i never really
> understood why my particular concern about open data -- that
> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got what
> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question
> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same
> benefits from the government, not just corporates who can
> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
>
> that makes for a very different take on things, as does a
> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
> accountability etc.
>
> they are all different reasons for being interested in
> civic access issues ...
>
> so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll
> instead say what I think about all this: the issue of civic
> access is important enough that a broad coalition of
> people/groups can support it, without having to agree on the
> reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but we
> should also remember that the group here spans the political
> and philosophical spectrum.

      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

[Jennifer Bell]

It might be a good idea to mention to your non-profit friend that Quebec has very restrictive gag laws limiting what can be done during an election.  

While I have this information second hand, it comes from a reputable source:

http://groups.google.com/group/visiblegovernment-discuss/browse_thread/thread/4ce3bf71d5814548

Jennifer Bell
visiblegovernment.ca

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, zara <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: zara <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] list of provincial election candidates
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 4:41 PM
> Thanks Ilona ! That is very generous :)
>
> Please contact me off list ([hidden email]) to
> follow up ?
>
>
> Catherine
>
>
> --
> Catherine Roy
> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>
>
> On Fri, November 21, 2008 3:15 pm, Ilona Dougherty wrote:
> > Catherine,
> >
> > Apathy is Boring has compiled a list of all the
> candidates running
> > the quebec election and their email addresses.
> > It is not 100% complete yet but it is a good start.
> > I am happy to share that with your friend if that
> would be helpful.
> >
> > It is a long and painful process, one which we do
> every election by
> > searching on party websites etc.
> > If anyone has any ideas about how to more efficiently
> collect that
> > information let me know we would REALLY appreciate it.
> > This currently eats up a lot of staff time.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ilona
> >
> > Ilona Dougherty
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > Executive Director :: directrice générale
> >
> > Apathy is Boring :: L'Apathie C'est Plate
> > 514.844.AisB (2472) :: 1.877.744.2472
> > 10 Pins W. #412 :: Montreal, QC :: H2W 1P9
> >
> > www.apathyisboring.com / www.lapathiecestplate.com
> >
> > Apathy is Boring uses art and technology to engage
> youth in
> > democracy. Help support our work!
> > http://www.apathyisboring.com/en/about_us/donate
> >
> > « L’apathie c’est plate » passe par l’art et
> la technologie dans le
> > but de sensibiliser les jeunes sur la démocratie.
> Aidez-nous à faire
> > notre travail!
> > http://www.apathyisboring.com/fr/about_us/donate
> >
> > On 21-Nov-08, at 1:23 PM, zara wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> A friend of mine needs a list of all provincial
> elections
> >> candidates for
> >> the Greater Montreal region and their bureau email
> coordinates for an
> >> awareness campaign his non-profit wants to do in
> the coming week. I
> >> have
> >> searched the usual suspects and while, for
> example, the Web site of
> >> the
> >> Dirction général des élections du Québec
> offers this page :
> >>
> >> http://www.monvote.qc.ca/fr/candidat_recherche.asp
> >>
> >> ... since I do not know all the riding names of
> the region, I find it
> >> difficult to interrogate the tool. And it does not
> offer coordinates.
> >>
> >> Can someone point me to something better ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Catherine
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Catherine Roy
> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

      __________________________________________________________________
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/

[Christopher D. Ritter]

Michael had mentioned some concerns regarding the difference between:

1. 'Open Access' which allows citizens to freely access their government data.
2. 'Open Governance' which allows citizens to interact with their government data.

Personally, I'm subscribed to two different email lists. Apart from CivicAccess, the Metagovernment Mailling list focuses on the second point by developing numerous open source 'open governance' applications.

While I remain a huge supporter of open governance -- as I believe that we should not only have access to our data, but also have access to tools which allow us to manage our goverment data (including our votes) -- California Issue 8 brought about the same concerns Michael had originally mentioned.

Specifically, non-gay (aka Straight) voters had the option to approve or deny the rights of gay couples to legally marry and adopt children. I believe this is an excellent example of the majority determining the rights of a minority, and I wonder if this might be further amplified in an open governance scenario?

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of backgrounds was being ignored before?

I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this thread...

Jennifer
visiblegovernment.ca

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>

> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess

> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM

> > I'm curious: what makes you think the values of
> Civic Access are being shanghied?
> not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a
> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied.
> rather a desire to recognize that the collection of people
> her come from different philosophical and practical angles.
>
> strangely, though I know michael well, i never really
> understood why my particular concern about open data -- that
> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got what
> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question
> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same
> benefits from the government, not just corporates who can
> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
>
> that makes for a very different take on things, as does a
> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
> accountability etc.
>
> they are all different reasons for being interested in
> civic access issues ...
>
> so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll
> instead say what I think about all this: the issue of civic
> access is important enough that a broad coalition of
> people/groups can support it, without having to agree on the
> reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but we
> should also remember that the group here spans the political
> and philosophical spectrum.

     __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
_______________________________________________

CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Christopher D. Ritter
User Experience Designer
[hidden email]

Visit Critteropolis Today!
critteropolis.myminicity.com

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

I am also really interested in conversations about libertarian direct democracy ideologies being embedded into Internet governance tool development, and a lack of deep democracy - real activism as seen in Internet projects like Make Poverty History and a questionning of governance structures, ideologies and agendas of the people who come together to support certain tools.  Tools, data and infrastructures are not neutral they have politics programmed into (code and social code) them, and it is the thinking of the politics in these that are really important.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Christopher D. Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Michael had mentioned some concerns regarding the difference between:

1. 'Open Access' which allows citizens to freely access their government data.
2. 'Open Governance' which allows citizens to interact with their government data.

Personally, I'm subscribed to two different email lists. Apart from CivicAccess, the Metagovernment Mailling list focuses on the second point by developing numerous open source 'open governance' applications.

While I remain a huge supporter of open governance -- as I believe that we should not only have access to our data, but also have access to tools which allow us to manage our goverment data (including our votes) -- California Issue 8 brought about the same concerns Michael had originally mentioned.

Specifically, non-gay (aka Straight) voters had the option to approve or deny the rights of gay couples to legally marry and adopt children. I believe this is an excellent example of the majority determining the rights of a minority, and I wonder if this might be further amplified in an open governance scenario?

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

I see.  And you feel that this multiplicity of backgrounds was being ignored before?

I'm curious what the specific trigger was for this thread...

Jennifer
visiblegovernment.ca

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]>

> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] maybe OT - values of CivicAccess

> To: [hidden email], "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 3:35 PM

> > I'm curious: what makes you think the values of
> Civic Access are being shanghied?
> not speaking for michael, but i don't think there is a
> concern that values of of CivicAccess are being shanghied.
> rather a desire to recognize that the collection of people
> her come from different philosophical and practical angles.
>
> strangely, though I know michael well, i never really
> understood why my particular concern about open data -- that
> is, "better decision-making" -- was not
> michael's interest in the issue. I never quite got what
> his interest was ... answered in his last post: a question
> of justice: ie, all citizens should have access to the same
> benefits from the government, not just corporates who can
> afford to pay high feeds for government data.
>
> that makes for a very different take on things, as does a
> desire for more efficiency, better tax/spending
> accountability etc.
>
> they are all different reasons for being interested in
> civic access issues ...
>
> so not to put words in michael's mouth, i'll
> instead say what I think about all this: the issue of civic
> access is important enough that a broad coalition of
> people/groups can support it, without having to agree on the
> reason for *why* they want civic access to happen...but we
> should also remember that the group here spans the political
> and philosophical spectrum.

     __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
_______________________________________________

CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Christopher D. Ritter
User Experience Designer
[hidden email]

Visit Critteropolis Today!
critteropolis.myminicity.com

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

--
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault

[catherine]

Thanks Jennifer for this information. I will pass it along to my friend
though I doubt the activities planned fall under this type of restriction.

Thanks again !


Catherine

--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net



On Sat, November 22, 2008 12:09 pm, Jennifer Bell wrote:

> It might be a good idea to mention to your non-profit friend that Quebec
> has very restrictive gag laws limiting what can be done during an
> election.
>
> While I have this information second hand, it comes from a reputable
> source:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/visiblegovernment-discuss/browse_thread/thread/4ce3bf71d5814548
>
> Jennifer Bell
> visiblegovernment.ca
>
> --- On Fri, 11/21/08, zara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: zara <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] list of provincial election
>> candidates
>> To: "civicaccess discuss" <[hidden email]>
>> Received: Friday, November 21, 2008, 4:41 PM
>> Thanks Ilona ! That is very generous :)
>>
>> Please contact me off list ([hidden email]) to
>> follow up ?
>>
>>
>> Catherine
>>
>>
>> --
>> Catherine Roy
>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>
>>
>> On Fri, November 21, 2008 3:15 pm, Ilona Dougherty wrote:
>> > Catherine,
>> >
>> > Apathy is Boring has compiled a list of all the
>> candidates running
>> > the quebec election and their email addresses.
>> > It is not 100% complete yet but it is a good start.
>> > I am happy to share that with your friend if that
>> would be helpful.
>> >
>> > It is a long and painful process, one which we do
>> every election by
>> > searching on party websites etc.
>> > If anyone has any ideas about how to more efficiently
>> collect that
>> > information let me know we would REALLY appreciate it.
>> > This currently eats up a lot of staff time.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Ilona
>> >
>> > Ilona Dougherty
>> > [hidden email]
>> >
>> > Executive Director :: directrice générale
>> >
>> > Apathy is Boring :: L'Apathie C'est Plate
>> > 514.844.AisB (2472) :: 1.877.744.2472
>> > 10 Pins W. #412 :: Montreal, QC :: H2W 1P9
>> >
>> > www.apathyisboring.com / www.lapathiecestplate.com
>> >
>> > Apathy is Boring uses art and technology to engage
>> youth in
>> > democracy. Help support our work!
>> > http://www.apathyisboring.com/en/about_us/donate
>> >
>> > « L’apathie c’est plate » passe par l’art et
>> la technologie dans le
>> > but de sensibiliser les jeunes sur la démocratie.
>> Aidez-nous à  faire
>> > notre travail!
>> > http://www.apathyisboring.com/fr/about_us/donate
>> >
>> > On 21-Nov-08, at 1:23 PM, zara wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> A friend of mine needs a list of all provincial
>> elections
>> >> candidates for
>> >> the Greater Montreal region and their bureau email
>> coordinates for an
>> >> awareness campaign his non-profit wants to do in
>> the coming week. I
>> >> have
>> >> searched the usual suspects and while, for
>> example, the Web site of
>> >> the
>> >> Dirction général des élections du Québec
>> offers this page :
>> >>
>> >> http://www.monvote.qc.ca/fr/candidat_recherche.asp
>> >>
>> >> ... since I do not know all the riding names of
>> the region, I find it
>> >> difficult to interrogate the tool. And it does not
>> offer coordinates.
>> >>
>> >> Can someone point me to something better ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Catherine
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Catherine Roy
>> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________________
> Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo!
> Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Russell McOrmond-2]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Hugh McGuire wrote:

> one example from the David Simon talk was: Baltimore's police chief
> promised a decrease in crime. And succeeded in dropping all crime by
> 40%, except murders. How did the police force achieve such success? By
> changing how crimes were classified...so armed robberies became
> robberies, robberies became larcenies... etc. So it was a data-shell
> game, but murders did not go down because you can't hide the bodies.
> In fact, nothing changed except how the stats were recorded.


   I was thinking of something similar when Michael Lenczner asked the
question.  The area of policy I am most pushed into over the last 7 years
is copyright.  The statistics are largely unknowable, given we have
allowed copyright to encroach more and more into activities which are
private in nature.  This means that all the statistics around copyright
infringement are based on indirect measurements, and ideological
assumptions.  Trying to do data-driven copyright policy is simply going to
be a failure, given the information we have is fundamentally flawed and
requirements to make accounting of private activities more exposed is
itself a harmful policy.

> So if you open things up, you are likely to have more statistical
> damned liars, AND more rigorous checking, and the hope is that the
> checking balances out, and overshadows the liars.

   In many cases the methodologies and assumptions are more important than
the numbers that come out.  Unfortunately most people don't look at these:
the yearly BSA "piracy" survey states it is dependent on IDC's estimate of
Free/Libre and Open Source Software usage -- and that study indicates it
is based on shipments of computers with bundled software.  Anyone who
looks at these methodologies will know they massively under-estimate FLOSS
(not often pre-installed, any more than infringing software is
pre-installed) and thus massively over-estimate so-called "software
piracy".

   This methodology is disclosed, and yet decisions are still made on this
flawed information.


--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/     http://KillBillC61.ca

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry control over my camcorder, computer,
   home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!"