From gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com Fri Nov 13 14:58:12 2009 From: gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com (Gunnar Hellekson) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:58:12 -0500 Subject: [report-card] Getting Started Message-ID: <4AFDC864.7070107@redhat.com> Friends -- We've spoken to some of you individually, or as a group, about this project. We've received some very excellent ideas for content and how to roll this out, and now we'd like to start in earnest. Having a single report that captures all the goals of an Open Government initiative is a daunting task, but it's important work. We started with a list of questions that we'd want each agency to be able to answer. Some of these are geared towards transparency, some towards participation, and others towards open standards and FOSS adoption. In sum, they should provide a clear picture on how thoroughly the agency in question has embraced the Open Government Memo: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ So here's the list of questions we've arrived at thus far. There are more, we're sure. Feel free to chime in with more. The next step is to assign values to each of the possible answers. Once that's ready, we're prepared to go out and start collecting data. Is that a plan? Some thoughts on methodology: the current consensus is that all the answers should be available on the agency's website. If we can't find the answers on the website, it follows that it's not very open or transparent. Before the report is published, we'll ask each agency to review the results and provide whatever feedback they like. That seems like a fair way to go. You'll see us use the term "usefully publish" -- we mean that simply posting a PDF scan of an original document is insufficient. The content should be full-text searchable, and we should be able to link to it directly. Open Data ========= Are the agency's non-classified budget and procurements usefully published on its web site? Does the agency usefully publish visitor logs and ex parte notices on its web site, informing the public of visitors and solicitors? Are open file format standards (e.g., ODF) used and accepted when seeking public input? Does the agency's classification/secrecy policy encourage public access by default, and restrict access only by exception? Does the agency conduct regular reviews of its classified material to encourage declassification whenever possible? Does the agency usefully publish all non-classified fact-finding trips and free product samples provided? Open Tools ========== Is there an established policy against vendor lock-in? Is there a policy that encourages competitive bid review for procurements? Are publications offered in document formats that are unencumbered by royalties or patents? Does the agency usefully publish its approved products list (if it has one) for public review? Does the agency have an explicit policy on open source software? Does the agency have a policy on contributions to open source software projects? Privacy ======= Is the agency?s privacy policy easily found on its web page? Does the agency's privacy policy explicitly address the reidentification issue? Collaboration and Participation =============================== Does the agency use online tools -- such as wikis, forums, social media and/or mailing lists -- to solicit public input and feedback? Does the agency have a mechanism for efficiently responding to public input through online sources? Does the agency place equal weight to online (web-based, email, etc.) input as input provided via fax or post? g -- Gunnar Hellekson, RHCE Lead Architect, Red Hat Government From andyo at oreilly.com Sun Nov 22 20:35:13 2009 From: andyo at oreilly.com (Andy Oram) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:35:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation and the adoption of open source software? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunnar Hellekson" To: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:58:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [report-card] Getting Started Friends -- We've spoken to some of you individually, or as a group, about this project. We've received some very excellent ideas for content and how to roll this out, and now we'd like to start in earnest. ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Oram O'Reilly Media email: andyo at oreilly.com Editor 10 Fawcett Street, Fourth Floor voice: 617-499-7479 Cambridge, MA 02138-1175, USA fax: 617-661-1116 identi.ca/twitter:praxagora http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com Wed Nov 25 09:43:52 2009 From: gunnar.hellekson at redhat.com (Gunnar Hellekson) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:43:52 -0500 Subject: [report-card] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> References: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> Message-ID: <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote: > Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open > source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness > are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA > was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of > questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an > explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation > and the adoption of open source software? That's a great question, Andy. I realize that I didn't give as full a background as I should have. If we do a report card that's about open source software specifically, it will be more difficult to gain traction with the agencies. This is because most agencies don't understand why open source software is important. They do, however, understand that open government is important. They're looking for ways to demonstrate progress against the Open Government memo issued in January. So if we have a broad tent, we can ensure that open source software is part of any discussion about open government. Put another way, having a broader coalition with open government groups ensures that open source software is seen to be as relevant as, say, transparency or open standards. Also, to be self-serving, a broader scope to the report card means that more people are available to help. So that's why the questions address Open Government, rather than just open source software. Is this approach sensible? Are there other questions we should be asking the agencies? Are there other organizations who'd be willing to collaborate on this project? g -- Gunnar Hellekson, RHCE Lead Architect, Red Hat Government > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gunnar Hellekson" > To: report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:58:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [report-card] Getting Started > > Friends -- > > We've spoken to some of you individually, or as a group, about this > project. We've received some very excellent ideas for content and how to > roll this out, and now we'd like to start in earnest. > > ... > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andy Oram O'Reilly Media email: andyo at oreilly.com > Editor 10 Fawcett Street, Fourth Floor voice: 617-499-7479 > Cambridge, MA 02138-1175, USA fax: 617-661-1116 > identi.ca/twitter:praxagora http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > report-card mailing list > report-card at opensourceforamerica.org > http://opensourceforamerica.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/report-card From john.pugh at canonical.com Mon Nov 30 06:31:42 2009 From: john.pugh at canonical.com (John M. Pugh) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:31:42 -0500 Subject: [report-card] [acquisitions-wg] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> References: <33087312.313041258203524297.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <3385346.418181258943713216.JavaMail.root@ball.east.ora.com> <20091125154351.GC13520@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B13BB2E.9030709@canonical.com> On 11/25/2009 10:43 AM, Gunnar Hellekson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote: >> Although I care a great deal about open government as well as open >> source, I'm also confused because the questions posted beow on openness >> are only tangentially related to open source software. I thought OSA >> was focused on the adoption of open source software, and your list of >> questions is taking you pretty far into other territory. Is there an >> explanation online of the relationship between transparency/participation >> and the adoption of open source software? > > That's a great question, Andy. I realize that I didn't give as full a > background as I should have. > > If we do a report card that's about open source software specifically, it will > be more difficult to gain traction with the agencies. This is because most > agencies don't understand why open source software is important. They do, > however, understand that open government is important. They're looking for > ways to demonstrate progress against the Open Government memo issued in > January. So if we have a broad tent, we can ensure that open source software > is part of any discussion about open government. > > Put another way, having a broader coalition with open government groups > ensures that open source software is seen to be as relevant as, say, > transparency or open standards. > > Also, to be self-serving, a broader scope to the report card means that more > people are available to help. > > So that's why the questions address Open Government, rather than just open > source software. > > Is this approach sensible? Are there other questions we should be asking the > agencies? Are there other organizations who'd be willing to collaborate on > this project? I haven't had time to spend a significant amount of time "noodling" on the questions, but they seem to be more focused on open government directly vs being focused on the role of open government on open source software (or vice-versa) as Andy mentions and that seems to conflict with the "expected" mission of the group. However, I have not seen the outcome that is trying to be created here. It seems that this group is wanting to find a way to show progress on open source software usage in government - if that is the outcome, then the questions miss the mark. My questions back to the team: What is the outcome you are trying to create? Who is the target of the questions (technical, administrative, etc)? Are the questions going to be "re-used" on a regular basis? I would imagine that the best route to get started is to simply gather a baseline of what is used (and the level of detail appropriate to the target) and use that as a mechanism for comparing what alternatives are available (provided the outcome being created is aligned) then use generative language to show how well that is aligned to open government. JP