Open data workshop, 29 July

Hmm, another "invite only" 'open govt data' workshop (see earlier MORST
effort).

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/users-sought-to-help-govt-with-open-data-use

Perhaps some Wellington-based Open Govt ninjas can invite themselves to
this event.

Apparently, some interaction will be available via #nzdata on Twitter.

Rest of post

Hi, this is the event that Rumi mentioned in his email of 18th.

He's facilitating. I think Nat could be going. And I'm going too.

Regards Mike

On 26/07/2010 6:24 p.m., <email obscured> wrote:
> Hmm, another "invite only" 'open govt data' workshop (see earlier MORST
> effort).
>
>
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/users-sought-to-help-govt-with-open-data-use

Rest of post

On Mon, July 26, 2010 8:27 pm, Mike wrote:
> Hi, this is the event that Rumi mentioned in his email of 18th.
> He's facilitating. I think Nat could be going. And I'm going too.

On Mon, July 26, 2010 7:01 pm, Glen Barnes wrote:
> A few of us were invited to the event. Unfortunately I couldn't make it as
> I am in Queenstown on the day. They are making an effort to reach out and
> they did specifically ask some of us to come along. I think they are
> trying to do some good things with this.

I'm glad a few people connected to this list are going. Does anyone have
more information on the event?

What time will it run?
Who is facilitating?
How will information from the event be captured, shared?

We've had a Microsoft unconference that was unconferency, and now we have
several events dealing with government funded data that have been based on
preselected attendees. I'm not seeing much 'open' there...

Regards
Jonathan

> On 26/07/2010 6:24 p.m., <email obscured> wrote:
>> Hmm, another "invite only" 'open govt data' workshop (see earlier MORST
>> effort).
>>
>>
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/users-sought-to-help-govt-with-open-data-use
>>
>> Perhaps some Wellington-based Open Govt ninjas can invite themselves to
>> this event.
>>
>> Apparently, some interaction will be available via #nzdata on Twitter.

Rest of post

On 26/07/2010, at 2:27 AM, Mike wrote:
> He's facilitating. I think Nat could be going. And I'm going too.

I can't make it, because I'll still be in the US. My response to them
was basically to go easy on inviting data experts and to work hard at
inviting actual users of the data. You need a few people who know
what's technically possible, but it's more important to know what's
useful and for that you generally need domain knowledge.

I'm still glad to see more things happening by the government. Like
Jonathan, I'm surprised there aren't more open events. This is still
their first steps, and they acknowledge it as such. I hold high hopes
for more open events in the future.

All the best,

Rest of post

On 26/07/2010, at 10:20 PM, <email obscured> wrote:

>
> We've had a Microsoft unconference that was unconferency, and now we have
> several events dealing with government funded data that have been based on
> preselected attendees. I'm not seeing much 'open' there...
>

I respectfully disagree. I think we need more of these events across lots of
local and central government organisations. I think we need to get out of this
one size fits all mentality that the only way to move forward to is to have all
inclusive barcamps. I just don't think we will get the right people involved if
that is the only way we go.

I think there is real merit to small groups working together that can come out
with actual results that can then be shared with a bigger group (I'm not saying
the barcamps don't come out with actual results, just different results). I
would love to see a real product come out of some of the DoC data but for that
to happen they need to work with smaller groups to firstly discover what to
open and then or through the process of opening it and learning along the way
what the issues are. If I'm not mistaken the same thing is happing with Fix My
Street with a couple of the councils?

I encourage anyone who wants particular data open to contact the organisation,
get involved and to try and find the people within the organisations that can
make decisions. Pitch them your idea and see if you can help move things along.
It doesn't always work but anything we can do to move the process along can
only be a good thing even if the result is an understanding about how open a
department isn't or how much certain data will cost.

We've got a State Services Commission who are ready and willing to help and at
least the beginning steps of departments starting to open up. Lets take these
opportunities and run with them.

Glen

Hi all,

I'm glad a few people connected to this list are going. Does anyone have

more information on the event?
>
What time will it run?
> Who is facilitating?
> How will information from the event be captured, shared?
>

It's called "Solving real world problems using NZ government data". It's
been initiated by Trudy Rankin, CIO of DOC, as part of the Open Data Stream
of the Data and Information Re-Use Work Programme led by Colin MacDonald
(Chief Executive of LINZ) on behalf of all of government.

The workshop was described in the initial invite as follows:

*"**This workshop is an experiment. We want to brainstorm ways in which NZ
government data could be used to solve some real world problems. In order
to do that we need to identify what those real world problems are and
which ones actually matter to people. Our idea is that with the help of a
group of people representing the 'real world' we could identify some burning
questions and some key datasets that could be used to help answer these
questions. We will run another workshop later with government people to
work out how those datasets could be made available.**"*

The initial invite went out to 10 of us, for whom the organisers had
*"**recognised
your well established (and articulated) ability to think diagonally in 3-D"
*

They wanted to have the workshop be between 15-20 people, and we were asked
to each nominate another couple of people who we thought could contribute
well. This was kind of tricky for me as I was able to think of far more than
two of you who'd be able to make positive contributions. I understand no one
who has been invited is being paid to be there.

By my quick count at least 8 of the invitees are on this email list.

It's on Thursday, 29 July 2010 from 9am to 12pm.

There hasn't yet been any info on how the discussions will be captured and
shared.

I think I agree with Glen, in that we need lots of events, of different
shapes, sizes and configurations, to over time involve the broadest range of
people possible (both inside and outside of government). It's also useful to
consider that this whole area and method of engaging, is new for public
sector employees and may be a bit scary, and hold professional risks for
them. They're taking tentative steps towards being more open, and I think
it's helpful to respect their desire to have some control over the format.

I hope that if we can do that, they'll be more inclined to keep going down
this path, and there'll be even more open events in the future.

Julian

Hi Guys

Thanks Jonathan for raising the issue everyone for the replies.

In addition to the invites sent out by Trudy, I sent number of Tweets & emails
out about this event to try and gather as many participants as possible.

Regards to capturing/sharing info, during the workshop, we'll use @nzdata
#nzdata for interaction.

After the workshop, we'll find a way to share the ideas & insights with as many
people as possible.

Rumi

Rest of post

Thanks to Nat, Glen, Rumi and Julian for your replies.

I certainly don't want to sound discouraging about this kind of event. I
think any events where people are discussing open govt data are progress,
and we need more not less.

But I am concerned about the process here. It's quite legitimate for
private individuals to run invite-only events (Foo, for example), and for
private companies to do so (Microsoft Open Govt), but IMHO it's a
different ballgame when government is involved, especially (ironically)
when the topic is open govt or open govt data.

I can see plenty of practical reasons why invitations to selected people
is a manageable, non-scary way forward. But I frankly don't think it is
acceptable: this is *our* data, paid for by *us*. We need to scale past
this invite-only, pussy-footing to larger, public, open processes as fast
as possible.

IMHO, and I emphasise this my *opinion* I feel these invite-only events
are dangerously close to a closed shop of an *in* crowd.

It's also concerning to me that we seem to have to lobby, cajole,
OIA-request etc. to get data out of agencies that are specifically tasked
with public good outcomes such as informing the public (Historic Places
Trust) or promoting & faciliating research results & exhibiting social
responsibility (CRIs).

I don't mean any of this as a critique of inviduals. I'm keen to
understand how we're at position where engaging with citizens about data
held on their behalf entails "professional risks" for the public servants.

/rant

On Tue, July 27, 2010 8:42 am, Julian Carver wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm glad a few people connected to this list are going. Does anyone have
>
> more information on the event?
>>
> What time will it run?
>> Who is facilitating?
>> How will information from the event be captured, shared?

Rest of post

>>
>
> It's called "Solving real world problems using NZ government data". It's
> been initiated by Trudy Rankin, CIO of DOC, as part of the Open Data
> Stream
> of the Data and Information Re-Use Work Programme led by Colin MacDonald
> (Chief Executive of LINZ) on behalf of all of government.
>
> The workshop was described in the initial invite as follows:
>
> *"**This workshop is an experiment. We want to brainstorm ways in which
> NZ
> government data could be used to solve some real world problems. In
> order
> to do that we need to identify what those real world problems are and
> which ones actually matter to people. Our idea is that with the help of a
> group of people representing the 'real world' we could identify some
> burning
> questions and some key datasets that could be used to help answer these
> questions. We will run another workshop later with government people to
> work out how those datasets could be made available.**"*
>
>
>
> The initial invite went out to 10 of us, for whom the organisers had
> *"**recognised
> your well established (and articulated) ability to think diagonally in
> 3-D"
> *
>
>
> They wanted to have the workshop be between 15-20 people, and we were
> asked
> to each nominate another couple of people who we thought could contribute
> well. This was kind of tricky for me as I was able to think of far more
> than
> two of you who'd be able to make positive contributions. I understand no
> one
> who has been invited is being paid to be there.
>
>
> By my quick count at least 8 of the invitees are on this email list.
>
>
> It's on Thursday, 29 July 2010 from 9am to 12pm.
>
> There hasn't yet been any info on how the discussions will be captured and
> shared.
>
> I think I agree with Glen, in that we need lots of events, of different
> shapes, sizes and configurations, to over time involve the broadest range
> of
> people possible (both inside and outside of government). It's also useful
> to
> consider that this whole area and method of engaging, is new for public
> sector employees and may be a bit scary, and hold professional risks for
> them. They're taking tentative steps towards being more open, and I think
> it's helpful to respect their desire to have some control over the format.
>
> I hope that if we can do that, they'll be more inclined to keep going down
> this path, and there'll be even more open events in the future.
>
> Julian
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/5ZO1lDDERXM0rHV77k552T
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> mailto:ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

--
http://huntdesign.co.nz

First cut of Data needs, Insights & Information uncovered during the Open Data
Workshop here ...

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dD5nWv-3Bf5wgk2pS3tXde1CZy-DkaN1m4VMgTRXIxA&;hl=en

Please let me know if I have missed something important.

Hi Rumi,
Thanks for quickly publishing these notes and making the document available.
I wasn't at the workshop, however it strikes me that I plus others can
probably help add to your document by commenting, correcting and refining
it.
Obviously it is your document, but this is a great opportunity to do some
collective online collaborative work that can perhaps help DOC and other
agencies identify and negotiate what might or can be done.

Are you open to the above?

Again, full marks for taking this tentative step.

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>> wrote:

> First cut of Data needs, Insights & Information uncovered during the Open
> Data Workshop here ...
>
>
>
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dD5nWv-3Bf5wgk2pS3tXde1CZy-DkaN1m4VMgTRXIxA&;hl=en

Rest of post

Hmm...

Sorry to come off sounding negative, but I have some concerns about the way
this went ahead, and that the results get given too much credence in the
overall space. It was an interesting exercise, but that list does not have
anything new or of particular interest to me. but it may well to those who are
new to this arena, perhaps such as DoC. So it perhaps had some value as an
initial information gathering exercise.

But we should be beyond an initial phase by now, even if DoC are not.

Rumi has done a great job of encapsulating this, I'm not sure if he did this on
behalf of DoC or himself, but the summary (despite a typo of their being two
ways, both push & push :-) is merely yet another another starting & discussion
point.

A list off attendees would be interesting, given the meeting was largely
restricted to a few selected individuals, & from the requests, I can guess some
names :-)

I don't see this as a balanced, representative or complete list, although the
items listed are a step in the right direction. This was also merely a DoC
initiative, yet the list covers a much wider list of agencies, and I think to
have real value, such meetings need to represent the wider agencies, as DoC is
not really in any position to collect such data on behalf of Govt.

IMHO, the Data Matters workshop run by Morst & the Open Data Unconference in
Wgtn a few months back, seem to me to be a more appropriate ways to collect
such information & move forward, including international speakers & examples
of ways forward, in a wider forum of interested parties. Hopefully the results
of the MoRST workshop will also be made public before long. If parties such as
DoC were better represented in such forums in the past, they would perhaps not
be trying to start now.

I'd be more comfortable if departments such as DoC were more closely aligned
with SSC, MoRST, GO, DIA, etc, intiatives, than running a small solo event by
invitation only, then seeming to publish the results as if it was a meaningful
referendum instead of a small preliminary discussion.

If this event was indeed significant progress, should MFish, MAF, each CRI,
MFE, Stats, Police, Metservice, etc also get their 20 selected advisors
together & repeat the exercise? Then tell DoC the results?

Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here, although they did at least
make an honest effort.

Brent Wood

Rest of post

I think Brent raises some useful points about the need to build on the work
that's already occurred.

By way of clarification my understanding (from the invite and what was said
at the event) is that Thursday's #nzdata event was organised by Trudy
Rankin, CIO of DOC ,as part of the Open Data Stream of the Data and
Information Re-Use Work Programme led by Colin MacDonald (Chief Executive of
LINZ) on behalf of all of government. It was not a DOC specific or DOC
focused exercise.

IMHO, the Data Matters workshop run by Morst & the Open Data Unconference in
> Wgtn a few months back, seem to me to be a more appropriate ways to collect
> such information & move forward, including international speakers &
> examples of ways forward, in a wider forum of interested parties. Hopefully
> the results of the MoRST workshop will also be made public before long.

The notes from the discussion sessions at 'Data Matters' have been written
up and should be out in the next week or so.

The notes from the Open Government 2010 Unconference should also be out
fairly soon.

At the #nzdata event on Thursday I raised the idea of incorporating relevant
outputs from those two events into the information that is being prepared
for the Data and Information Re-Use Work Programme. Trudy seemed to think
this was a good idea.

Julian

Rest of post

I thought this was a combined effort by DOC, LINZ and the parties working
with the Geospatial Office with Trudy fronting it - not a DOC private
affair.

If it isn't then I agree with Brent's comments. (Though good on DOC getting
the notes up.)

What would help here is:
- Clear purpose
- Clear statement of endpoint
- What was considered
- How it was organised
- What parties were going to do next

I am not particularly interested in who attended but rather who takes away
the action points.

(By the way I still don't get why this stuff doesn't happen online. Yes its
great to share a beer - but get over it, haven't you noticed the planet
can't handle these frills)

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:40 AM, <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Hmm...
>
> Sorry to come off sounding negative, but I have some concerns about the way
> this went ahead, and that the results get given too much credence in the
> overall space. It was an interesting exercise, but that list does not have
> anything new or of particular interest to me. but it may well to those who
> are new to this arena, perhaps such as DoC. So it perhaps had some value as
> an initial information gathering exercise.
>
> But we should be beyond an initial phase by now, even if DoC are not.
>
> Rumi has done a great job of encapsulating this, I'm not sure if he did
> this on behalf of DoC or himself, but the summary (despite a typo of their
> being two ways, both push & push :-) is merely yet another another starting
> & discussion point.
>
> A list off attendees would be interesting, given the meeting was largely
> restricted to a few selected individuals, & from the requests, I can guess
> some names :-)
>
> I don't see this as a balanced, representative or complete list, although
> the items listed are a step in the right direction. This was also merely a
> DoC initiative, yet the list covers a much wider list of agencies, and I
> think to have real value, such meetings need to represent the wider
> agencies, as DoC is not really in any position to collect such data on
> behalf of Govt.
>
> IMHO, the Data Matters workshop run by Morst & the Open Data Unconference
> in Wgtn a few months back, seem to me to be a more appropriate ways to
> collect such information & move forward, including international speakers &
> examples of ways forward, in a wider forum of interested parties. Hopefully
> the results of the MoRST workshop will also be made public before long. If
> parties such as DoC were better represented in such forums in the past, they
> would perhaps not be trying to start now.
>
> I'd be more comfortable if departments such as DoC were more closely
> aligned with SSC, MoRST, GO, DIA, etc, intiatives, than running a small solo
> event by invitation only, then seeming to publish the results as if it was a
> meaningful referendum instead of a small preliminary discussion.
>
> If this event was indeed significant progress, should MFish, MAF, each CRI,
> MFE, Stats, Police, Metservice, etc also get their 20 selected advisors
> together & repeat the exercise? Then tell DoC the results?
>
> Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here, although they did at
> least make an honest effort.
>
> Brent Wood
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/1/10, Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > From: Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>>
> > Subject: [ninjas] Open data workshop, 29 July
> > To: ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz
> > Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 6:51 PM
> > First cut of Data needs, Insights
> > & Information uncovered during the Open Data Workshop
> > here ...
> >
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dD5nWv-3Bf5wgk2pS3tXde1CZy-DkaN1m4VMgTRXIxA&;hl=en

Rest of post

In addition to Julian's point, my understanding of one of Trudy's teams
action points from the day was to make the activities of the Data and
Information Re-Use Work Programme chief executives' group more transparent.
This might result in monthly updates on the SSC blog or something similar,
which might resolve some of the issues.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Jim McLeod <<email obscured>> wrote:

> I thought this was a combined effort by DOC, LINZ and the parties working
> with the Geospatial Office with Trudy fronting it - not a DOC private
> affair.
>
> If it isn't then I agree with Brent's comments. (Though good on DOC getting
> the notes up.)
>
> What would help here is:
> - Clear purpose
> - Clear statement of endpoint
> - What was considered
> - How it was organised
> - What parties were going to do next
>
> I am not particularly interested in who attended but rather who takes away
> the action points.
>
> (By the way I still don't get why this stuff doesn't happen online. Yes its
> great to share a beer - but get over it, haven't you noticed the planet
> can't handle these frills)
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:40 AM, <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Sorry to come off sounding negative, but I have some concerns about the
> way
> > this went ahead, and that the results get given too much credence in the
> > overall space. It was an interesting exercise, but that list does not
> have
> > anything new or of particular interest to me. but it may well to those
> who
> > are new to this arena, perhaps such as DoC. So it perhaps had some value
> as
> > an initial information gathering exercise.
> >
> > But we should be beyond an initial phase by now, even if DoC are not.
> >
> > Rumi has done a great job of encapsulating this, I'm not sure if he did
> > this on behalf of DoC or himself, but the summary (despite a typo of
> their
> > being two ways, both push & push :-) is merely yet another another
> starting
> > & discussion point.
> >
> > A list off attendees would be interesting, given the meeting was largely
> > restricted to a few selected individuals, & from the requests, I can
> guess
> > some names :-)
> >
> > I don't see this as a balanced, representative or complete list, although
> > the items listed are a step in the right direction. This was also merely
> a
> > DoC initiative, yet the list covers a much wider list of agencies, and I
> > think to have real value, such meetings need to represent the wider
> > agencies, as DoC is not really in any position to collect such data on
> > behalf of Govt.
> >
> > IMHO, the Data Matters workshop run by Morst & the Open Data Unconference
> > in Wgtn a few months back, seem to me to be a more appropriate ways to
> > collect such information & move forward, including international
> speakers &
> > examples of ways forward, in a wider forum of interested parties.
> Hopefully
> > the results of the MoRST workshop will also be made public before long.
> If
> > parties such as DoC were better represented in such forums in the past,
> they
> > would perhaps not be trying to start now.
> >
> > I'd be more comfortable if departments such as DoC were more closely
> > aligned with SSC, MoRST, GO, DIA, etc, intiatives, than running a small
> solo
> > event by invitation only, then seeming to publish the results as if it
> was a
> > meaningful referendum instead of a small preliminary discussion.
> >
> > If this event was indeed significant progress, should MFish, MAF, each
> CRI,
> > MFE, Stats, Police, Metservice, etc also get their 20 selected advisors
> > together & repeat the exercise? Then tell DoC the results?
> >
> > Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here, although they did at
> > least make an honest effort.
> >
> > Brent Wood
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 8/1/10, Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>>
> > > Subject: [ninjas] Open data workshop, 29 July
> > > To: ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz
> > > Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 6:51 PM
> > > First cut of Data needs, Insights
> > > & Information uncovered during the Open Data Workshop
> > > here ...
> > >
> > >
> >
>
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dD5nWv-3Bf5wgk2pS3tXde1CZy-DkaN1m4VMgTRXIxA&;hl=en

Rest of post

Hi Brent,

You stated:

> Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here, although they did at least
make an honest effort.

I'm not sure what you think the point should have been. Can you elaborate on
what you think the purpose of meetings/gatherings/fourms should be? Do you
think they should all focus on the same thing? Have the same format? Anything
else that is missing the point?

IMHO if a couple of datasets get released because of this and a couple of
people build some interesting things then to me this would be a success but
others may have different views of measuring success.

Thanks,
Glen
On 2/08/2010, at 7:40 AM, <email obscured> wrote:

> Hmm...
>
> Sorry to come off sounding negative, but I have some concerns about the way
this went ahead, and that the results get given too much credence in the
overall space. It was an interesting exercise, but that list does not have
anything new or of particular interest to me. but it may well to those who are
new to this arena, perhaps such as DoC. So it perhaps had some value as an
initial information gathering exercise.
>
> But we should be beyond an initial phase by now, even if DoC are not.
>
> Rumi has done a great job of encapsulating this, I'm not sure if he did this
on behalf of DoC or himself, but the summary (despite a typo of their being two
ways, both push & push :-) is merely yet another another starting & discussion
point.
>
> A list off attendees would be interesting, given the meeting was largely
restricted to a few selected individuals, & from the requests, I can guess some
names :-)
>
> I don't see this as a balanced, representative or complete list, although the
items listed are a step in the right direction. This was also merely a DoC
initiative, yet the list covers a much wider list of agencies, and I think to
have real value, such meetings need to represent the wider agencies, as DoC is
not really in any position to collect such data on behalf of Govt.
>
> IMHO, the Data Matters workshop run by Morst & the Open Data Unconference in
Wgtn a few months back, seem to me to be a more appropriate ways to collect
such information & move forward, including international speakers & examples
of ways forward, in a wider forum of interested parties. Hopefully the results
of the MoRST workshop will also be made public before long. If parties such as
DoC were better represented in such forums in the past, they would perhaps not
be trying to start now.
>
> I'd be more comfortable if departments such as DoC were more closely aligned
with SSC, MoRST, GO, DIA, etc, intiatives, than running a small solo event by
invitation only, then seeming to publish the results as if it was a meaningful
referendum instead of a small preliminary discussion.
>
> If this event was indeed significant progress, should MFish, MAF, each CRI,
MFE, Stats, Police, Metservice, etc also get their 20 selected advisors
together & repeat the exercise? Then tell DoC the results?
>
> Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here, although they did at least
make an honest effort.
>
> Brent Wood
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/1/10, Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> From: Rumi Shivaz <<email obscured>>
>> Subject: [ninjas] Open data workshop, 29 July
>> To: ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz
>> Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 6:51 PM
>> First cut of Data needs, Insights
>> & Information uncovered during the Open Data Workshop
>> here ...
>>
>>
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1dD5nWv-3Bf5wgk2pS3tXde1CZy-DkaN1m4VMgTRXIxA&;hl=en
>>
>> Please let me know if I have missed something
>> important.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/7c25tXra8CUHiRuJCCog2v
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> mailto:ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Rest of post

I have changed the document setting so anyone can edit/add to the Google Doc.

>Rumi has done a great job of encapsulating this, I'm >not sure if he did this
>on behalf of DoC or himself, but the summary (despite a >typo of their being
two
>ways, both push & push :-) is merely yet another >another starting &
discussion
>point.

Guys, I spent most of my Sunday going through the mind-maps from the workshop
and doing the best I can to produce some notes for everyones benefit. I didn't
have to do it ... shitty Sunday weather in Welly helped the cause :-).

Hi,

I have posted my personal thoughts about the workshop here: A framework
for solving real world problems using NZ government data:
http://wp.me/pB9Ws-5o

For me, Trudy was very clear at the opening of the workshop, agencies
have no money now or for the forseeable future. They were looking for
ideas for specific data sets, to solve real problems, for people.
Then they were going to work with the agencies that hold those data sets
to remove all the roadblocks (targeted action).

If it was me, it boils down to : "what are the 3 government data sets
that need to be open, to solve the most immediate problems for the most
people?"

Regards Mike

Rest of post

--- On Mon, 8/2/10, Glen Barnes <<email obscured>> wrote:

> From: Glen Barnes <<email obscured>>
> Subject: Re: [ninjas] Open data workshop, 29 July
> To: ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz
> Date: Monday, August 2, 2010, 8:54 AM
> Hi Brent,
>
> You stated:
>
> > Sorry, but I think DoC is missing the point here,
> although they did at least make an honest effort.
>
> I'm not sure what you think the point should have been. Can
> you elaborate on what you think the purpose of
> meetings/gatherings/fourms should be? Do you think they
> should all focus on the same thing? Have the same format?
> Anything else that is missing the point?
>
> IMHO if a couple of datasets get released because of this
> and a couple of people build some interesting things then to
> me this would be a success but others may have different
> views of measuring success.

Documents released from a DoC run meeting, by invitation only, where most of
the recommendations are for datasets which DoC has no responsibility, and the
departments who DO have responsibility were not involved at all, so get to hear
about this via some grapevine, I don't think is the best way, or even an
appropriate way, to usefully progress a coordinated opening of publicly owned
data.

I believe, while it may result in fragmented individual case successes, as you
suggest, such an approach from individual ministries is not furthering an
inclusive, coordinated, NZ Inc approach to public release of data, which is
where we need to focuss to achieve a really effective result.

It may be result in some small tactical gains, but I suggest is a strategic
loss overall, especially when compared with some other recent events.

Cheers,

Brent

Brent,

> Documents released from a DoC run meeting, by invitation only, where most
> of the recommendations are for datasets which DoC has no responsibility, and
> the departments who DO have responsibility were not involved at all, so get
> to hear about this via some grapevine, I don't think is the best way, or
> even an appropriate way, to usefully progress a coordinated opening of
> publicly owned data.
>

It wasn't a DOC run meeting. It was a meeting run as part of the Open Data
Stream of the Data and Information Re-Use Work Programme. This is a whole of
government programme. Trudy was working on behalf of this programme, and
just happens to also be the DOC CIO.

What they were doing is getting input from people outside of government, on
what some of the real world problems were that might be solved by opening up
govt datasets. They're then going to run a similar session with
representatives from govt departments to look at the suggestions and see
what can feasibly be done.

I agree with your concerns, but I think in this case they're unfounded. This
is a whole of govt initiative.

People's misunderstanding of it however, is a real issue, and may be a
result of the way the event was communicated. At the moment we've got two
groups

1. those inside govt trying to take small steps towards this, and
tentatively experimenting with social media
2. the open.org.nz community who want things to happen faster, and in an
inclusive a way as is possible

The interaction between those two groups is creating some dynamic tension,
which for now seems to be quite useful, as we all come to better understand
each other's positions, desires and constraints.

I think we need to be careful though to read what's been said already, to
only give criticism where it's really due, and to praise tentative efforts
from others, even if they might not be the way we would have done them.

Julian

I honestly don't agree. Getting a whole of NZ approach to this is going to take
years. Why wait when we have individuals in government who are willing help on
case by case basis? By all means push the wider opening of government data but
we shouldn't stop all other work on getting access to data just because we
might one day get a remit from higher up to force this on the departments.
Small tactical gains do add to the longer term strategic push as we then have
real world examples to point to. "Because you should" is never going to fly as
a reason to government to open the data, they need examples of it actually
working and making these small wins provides these examples.

Glen

On 2/08/2010, at 10:47 AM, <email obscured> wrote:
>
> Documents released from a DoC run meeting, by invitation only, where most of
the recommendations are for datasets which DoC has no responsibility, and the
departments who DO have responsibility were not involved at all, so get to hear
about this via some grapevine, I don't think is the best way, or even an
appropriate way, to usefully progress a coordinated opening of publicly owned
data.
>
> I believe, while it may result in fragmented individual case successes, as
you suggest, such an approach from individual ministries is not furthering an
inclusive, coordinated, NZ Inc approach to public release of data, which is
where we need to focuss to achieve a really effective result.
>
> It may be result in some small tactical gains, but I suggest is a strategic
loss overall, especially when compared with some other recent events.

Rest of post

What Glen and Julian said...

If we have to wait for DIA to bless us from above on yet another all of
government initiative we may as well give up now.

Cheers
Don

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 12:02 +1200, Glen Barnes wrote:
> I honestly don't agree. Getting a whole of NZ approach to this is
> going to take years. Why wait when we have individuals in government
> who are willing help on case by case basis? By all means push the
> wider opening of government data but we shouldn't stop all other work
> on getting access to data just because we might one day get a remit
> from higher up to force this on the departments. Small tactical gains
> do add to the longer term strategic push as we then have real world
> examples to point to. "Because you should" is never going to fly as a
> reason to government to open the data, they need examples of it
> actually working and making these small wins provides these examples.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> On 2/08/2010, at 10:47 AM, <email obscured> wrote:
> >
> > Documents released from a DoC run meeting, by invitation only, where most
of the recommendations are for datasets which DoC has no responsibility, and
the departments who DO have responsibility were not involved at all, so get to
hear about this via some grapevine, I don't think is the best way, or even an
appropriate way, to usefully progress a coordinated opening of publicly owned
data.
> >
> > I believe, while it may result in fragmented individual case successes, as
you suggest, such an approach from individual ministries is not furthering an
inclusive, coordinated, NZ Inc approach to public release of data, which is
where we need to focuss to achieve a really effective result.
> >
> > It may be result in some small tactical gains, but I suggest is a strategic
loss overall, especially when compared with some other recent events.

Rest of post

Hi Glen,

I'm not saying you are wrong in any way, but I do have a different opinion
(whoich could be teh wrong one :-)

There are already plenty of examples there now. In NZ & overseas. One more will
not make much difference. Depending, I think, on exactly how it makes data
available.

Nothing that came out of Ravi's list is new to me, some go back decades,
without much progress. So we have had another meeting, reinvented a few wheels,
restated some positions, reexpressed some views & asked (again) for some data
to be made public.

This is somehow new? real progress? a significant achievement? some new data
available?

Sorry, it is a small step in vaguely the right direction, & I don't see any
cause for celebration (yet :-)

Just my opinion...

Brent

Rest of post

--- On Mon, 8/2/10, Glen Barnes <<email obscured>> wrote:

> From: Glen Barnes <<email obscured>>
> Subject: Re: [ninjas] Open data workshop, 29 July
> To: ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz
> Date: Monday, August 2, 2010, 12:02 PM
> I honestly don't agree. Getting a
> whole of NZ approach to this is going to take years. Why
> wait when we have individuals in government who are willing
> help on case by case basis? By all means push the
> wider opening of government data but we shouldn't stop all
> other work on getting access to data just because we might
> one day get a remit from higher up to force this on the
> departments. Small tactical gains do add to the longer term
> strategic push as we then have real world examples to point
> to. "Because you should" is never going to fly as a reason
> to government to open the data, they need examples of it
> actually working and making these small wins provides these
> examples.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> On 2/08/2010, at 10:47 AM, <email obscured>
> wrote:
> >
> > Documents released from a DoC run meeting, by
> invitation only, where most of the recommendations are for
> datasets which DoC has no responsibility, and the
> departments who DO have responsibility were not involved at
> all, so get to hear about this via some grapevine, I don't
> think is the best way, or even an appropriate way, to
> usefully progress a coordinated opening of publicly owned
> data.
> >
> > I believe, while it may result in fragmented
> individual case successes, as you suggest, such an approach
> from individual ministries is not furthering an inclusive,
> coordinated, NZ Inc approach to public release of data,
> which is where we need to focuss to achieve a really
> effective result.
> >
> > It may be result in some small tactical gains, but I
> suggest is a strategic loss overall, especially when
> compared with some other recent events.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brent
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government
> Ninjas:
> > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/1zMEPcSmRKxCUDKATT98KZ
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > mailto:ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/J9jxZWidTCTfc8qaOMOOx
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> mailto:ninja-talk@groups.open.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

On Mon, August 2, 2010 12:01 pm, Julian Carver wrote:
> It wasn't a DOC run meeting. It was a meeting run as part of the Open Data
> Stream of the Data and Information Re-Use Work Programme. This is a whole
> of
> government programme. Trudy was working on behalf of this programme, and
> just happens to also be the DOC CIO.

I think much of the confusion is that very few people on this list seem to
be acquainted with this programme. On the face of it, it sounds like great
initiative, and potentially very symbiotic with the efforts pursued by
individuals on this list.

I'm concerned that this Programme as a whole has zero Internet visibility
(if one takes Google as a measure), let alone the Open Data Stream.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&;client=safari&;rls=en&;q=%22Data+and+Information+Re-Use+Work+Programme%22+site%3Anz&;btnG=Search

Looking at what has mentioned on this list there is a Working Group, a
Steering Group, a survey on data.govt.nz and this recent #nzdata workshop.
There doesn't appear to be any website or blog that mentions what's going
on, who is involved or opportunities for public input.

I doubt that the data.govt.nz survey and the #nzdata workshop will provide
clear priorities (that may not even be feasible irrespective of method).
They may have been useful for a few people to have a say, and every little
bit helps, but I'd suggest what we need is clear visibility and ownership
of this Programme, and a site where people can suggest datasets and others
can pledge to use them. I guess the forum at
http://data.govt.nz/suggest-a-dataset/ is probably the best place for this
in the absence of anything more effective.

Rumi - perhaps your #nzdata sheets should be linked to from data.govt.nz?

> This is a whole of govt initiative.

Which is great, but for something covering all of NZ govt, I'm mystified
as to the lack of web-accessible programme info. Am I just not using the
right search terms?

Regards
Jonathan

Rest of post

On 1/08/2010, at 5:29 PM, <email obscured> wrote:
> I'm concerned that this Programme as a whole has zero Internet
> visibility
> (if one takes Google as a measure), let alone the Open Data Stream.

I think the government needs help in being open. As we all know,
openness at an Internet scale does not come easy to anyone at first.
The traditional "easy win" for productive consultation in government
is the small focused group, and that precisely because it doesn't
require interaction with a large number of people. As we've seen,
though, talking to some people on the Internet without informing the
others leads to misinformation, mistrust, and misunderstandings.

The solution is straightforward: the government should establish a
line of communication so that everyone who is interested can learn
when and where who is doing what with whom, and how it went. Because
of the conversations I've had, I know there's a Ministerial Working
Group, I know there's a CE Working Group, I know there are good people
in DIA who get the net and are trying to make good things happen. But
most people don't have those conversations and thus don't have that
knowledge. Fortunately that's easily remedied.

This is information, you'll note, not consultation. That is, we'll be
told but we won't necessarily be included. This transparency of
process is a good first step, and I hope there'll be many experiments
to come as the government tries to involve more people in information
gathering, idea generation, and implementation. But the first step
seems to me to be opening a reliable and appropriate channel of
communication.

Cheers;

Nat
(I'll pass this on to Colin and Penny, who hopefully know the right
people to Make It So)

Hi all,

I've captured all the Tweets from the event and published these as Google
Spreadsheet just so we don't loose them.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AuCV9t4ZmYsOdE11WGkwSk5OcDBtWU51bFNULS15aEE&;hl=en&;single=true&;gid=0&;output=html

Julian

>
> I've captured all the Tweets from the event and published these as Google
> Spreadsheet just so we don't loose them.
>

Also as an online archive with analysis, graphs etc:
http://archivist.visitmix.com/serenare/1

Julian

BTW: On the idea of food ratings databases form councils....

Sam from Zenbu has already done the hard yards trying to get this data from
council - http://wiki.zenbu.co.nz/index.php/Councils_Project

This highlighted how hard this data is to get from councils and the range of
formats.

On 2/08/2010, at 4:39 PM, Julian Carver wrote:

>>
>> I've captured all the Tweets from the event and published these as Google
>> Spreadsheet just so we don't loose them.

Rest of post

Here is quick update on where we're at with our small series of workshops on
open NZ govt data. - But first I want to thank Rumi and Julian for capturing
and sharing some of the outputs of the first workshop through this site.

Following discussion during and after the workshop on the 29th we have decided
to run a similar session with representatives from community groups and NGOs to
get their input into the subject as well. We have sent out invitations to a
selection of NGOs and community groups last Wednesday. As the session is
scheduled for Tuesday next week we realise that it's fairly short notice, but
we're still hoping for a moderate turn-up.

If can think of someone you think should attend (think NGO or community group
representatives)please let me know.

Some further progress:
We are working on posting a blog-entry on our experience with Twitter (yes,
that was something new for us) and we are making the Data and Information Reuse
Programme aware of your request to publish more information on the Programme
online.

Cheers, Isabel

Hi Isabel, have a chat to http://www.nzfvwo.org.nz/ if you havent
already.
Regards Mike

On 6/08/2010 11:54 a.m., iregenaermel wrote:
> Here is quick update on where we're at with our small series of workshops on
open NZ govt data. - But first I want to thank Rumi and Julian for capturing
and sharing some of the outputs of the first workshop through this site.
>
> Following discussion during and after the workshop on the 29th we have
decided to run a similar session with representatives from community groups and
NGOs to get their input into the subject as well. We have sent out invitations
to a selection of NGOs and community groups last Wednesday. As the session is
scheduled for Tuesday next week we realise that it's fairly short notice, but
we're still hoping for a moderate turn-up.
>
> If can think of someone you think should attend (think NGO or community group
representatives)please let me know.
>
> Some further progress:
> We are working on posting a blog-entry on our experience with Twitter (yes,
that was something new for us) and we are making the Data and Information Reuse
Programme aware of your request to publish more information on the Programme
online.

Rest of post

Isabel,

Try Liana Stupples at Hikurangi Foundation.
http://www.hikurangi.org.nz/contact/

Just want to let you know that the second workshop about 'Resolving Real World
Problems using NZ government data' will go ahead tomorrow morning.

And we'd like to invite you again to follow and contribute via Twitter
(#NZDATA/@NZDATA).

Cheers, Isabel

If you are interested you can find all Tweets around today's 'Resolving Real
World Problems using NZ government data' - NGO workshop here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AvWkBFunuhcOdHU5bnl6eldPeVRXcHB3QlhzSTJ1VFE&;authkey=CPzRoJoF&;hl=en&;single=true&;gid=0&;output=html

Cheers, Isabel

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Open data workshop, 29 July

Already a member?

Not a member?