To add to the categories of data that ought to be exposed: information and statistics on internal government processes. eg.
This is almost too far down the road to see it from here, but some people are starting to put together ideas on how this can be brought off, by exposing parts of government internal IT infrastructure. See the diagram here:
Also, the concept is part of the framing arguments for this paper, 'Government Data and the Invisible Hand' here:
For a 'right now' example, Steve Clift had an anecdote in his presentation at PDF08 how, in Estonia, the entire government document repository is open for browsing, so that citizens have access to documents as they're being drafted.
> From: Hugh McGuire <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Getting Tools Built
> To: "civicaccess discuss" <
[hidden email]>
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:53 AM
> yes! all government data sets - environment canada, natural
> resources
> canada, health canada, ... I want it all opened up (subject
> to
> reasonable privacy constraints, of course).
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Jennifer Bell
> > <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I met with Micheal Lenczner at a coffee shop in
> April, and was
> >> told that CivicAccess was a community of interest,
> with no
> >> specific plans for the future.
> >>
> >
> > I'm sorry for the miscommunication Jen. What I
> meant to say that it
> > was my impression that CivicAccess had no immediate
> plans for any
> > legal shape. I just think it's very important
> that people know what
> > they are getting into - especially around areas of
> governance. I'm
> > sure that there are projects or campaigns that can be
> done with/by
> > Civicaccess, but I just didn't / don't see a
> CivicAccess office
> > happening anytime soon, or even a board. It could
> happen, but someone
> > would have to propose something clear. Also, I do
> believe that a
> > neutral place of discussion and support is important
> for a movement
> > like this.
> >
> >> There's nothing wrong with maintaining a
> separate 'community of
> >> interest'... my impression was that
> CivicAccess seems to have a
> >> broader focus than visiblegovernment, with more
> interest in
> >> scientific data.
> >>
> >
> > Well, Tracey does love scientific data. ;-) And yeah
> - we had early
> > discussions about having access to government
> datasets, not just what
> > we would think of as "info" in terms of
> freedom of information
> > requests.
> >
> >
> >> Jennifer
> >>
> >> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Cory Horner
> <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Cory Horner <
[hidden email]>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Getting
> Tools Built
> >>> To: "civicaccess discuss"
> <
[hidden email]>
> >>> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 2:38 AM
> >>> A while back there was brief discussion about
> CivicAccess
> >>> becoming an
> >>> umbrella foundation/non-profit to conglomerate
> the various
> >>> Canadian
> >>> access-related projects. I see a real
> need/use for this,
> >>> as i'm sure
> >>> each little project has little interest in all
> the
> >>> paperwork involved
> >>> to achieve non-profit status, when all they
> want is a
> >>> little
> >>> financial support; sticking a little "a
> CivicAccess
> >>> project" logo in
> >>> the corner is a lot more appealing.
> >>>
> >>> To contrast the two examples given by
> Jennifer, I guess I
> >>> see
> >>> mySociety as a handful of people who built
> tools who then
> >>> built a non-
> >>> profit around it, versus Sunlight as a group
> with a bucket
> >>> of money
> >>> who then built tools. CivicAccess and
> VisibleGovernment
> >>> seem to be
> >>> taking the similar approaches, respectively.
> >>>
> >>> My question is, are CivicAccess and
> VisibleGovernment
> >>> competing, or
> >>> should we try to, for example, make
> CivicAccess the
> >>> umbrella/
> >>> community, and VisibleGovernment the
> fundraising wing? Is
> >>> there is a
> >>> difference that i'm not seeing here,
> besides branding?
> >>> (or is having
> >>> 2 entities too confusing?)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Cory.
> >>>
> >>> On 7-Jul-08, at 1:11 PM, Jennifer Bell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've been thinking the last while
> about the best
> >>> approach for
> >>>> promoting the creation of online tools for
> government
> >>>
> >>>> transparency. The Sunlight Foundation in
> the US and
> >>> mySociety in
> >>>> the UK are showing that the government can
> be changed
> >>> by example,
> >>>> from the outside. It just takes people to
> push to
> >>> make it happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> What will it take to get a similar
> movement going here
> >>> in Canada?
> >>>> As I know there are several people here
> with
> >>> experience in similar
> >>>> groups, I'd like to get your opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ingredients, as I see them, are:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Money.
> >>>> 2) A Community.
> >>>> 3) A Tool.
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> >>>
[hidden email]
> >>>
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of
> Flickr!
> >>
> >>
http://www.flickr.com/gift/> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discussYahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at