[Aust-NZ] What Open Government can learn from us Open Source folks

Tue Mar 20 18:19:47 PDT 2018

Hi Cameron,

I’ve read through the latest draft. It is looking good. Congratulations on your initiative.

There are two aspects that are missing, that is:

- supporting the governance frameworks that enable open data to work, particularly within the spatial data context (i.e. SDI). I’ve added relevant text below; and

- acknowledgement that by governments making data open for use by others, they are actually trying to collaborate. However, in the 
  ever increasing search for efficiency dividends in government it is very hard to maintain the funding, skills and infrastructure  to 
  facilitate the provision of that open data.  

I’m happy to sign the document. I’ll send you my details offline.

Page 2, Background Reasoning, 2017 Productivity Report’s claim that "Australia, to its detriment, is not yet participating”:

<comment-BB>

This is not true.

Australia has been participating in international data framework initiatives and helping to define.

For many years, Australia has been a global leader, particularly in the development of a data framework that facilitated and encouraged the collaboration and sharing of data. This was the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI) that was developed by a collaboration of many State and Federal government departments and facilitated by the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC).

This led to the creation of the federal Office of Spatial Data Policy (OSDP) (I think it was called) to act as a coordinating body.

The ASDI was developed concurrently with other international developments in Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) such as the European INSPIRE initiative and the US Federal Government Data Committee. For the decade up until about 2006, the ASDI was well regarded internationally as a leader in SDI concepts. You’ll see it cited in relevant SDI related research from around that time.

Since then, funding for spatial data coordination has been wound back by successive governments, with the eventual dissolution of the OSDP.

There is currently an initiative under the proposed 

SDI’s typically have a governance regime that facilitates open data and access to this data via the use of open spatial standards.

In the absence of strong policy support from government, various Australian Government departments have been continuing the open data and open access approaches established with the ASDI. However this is proving to be quite difficult in the absence of suitable funding to support coordination activities.

Notable examples are Geoscience Australia and the Bureau of Meteorology. Both have also been working internationally to facilitate improved data interoperability within open standards bodies such as the Open Geospatial Consortium, the World Wide Web Consortium and the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations.

The results are a range of spatial data services that are used widely by many Federal and State Government departments and also widely in industry. 

Australia is also continuing the research work into SDI through the activities of the Cooperative Research Centre - Spatial Information [1].

Work is also progressing to renovate the ASDI through initiatives such as: 

- ANZLIC's 'Foundation Spatial Data Framework’ [2]

- '2026 Spatial Industry Transformation and Growth Agenda’ [3]

- National Environmental Infrastructure [4] and notably their National Principles for Environmental Information.

These activities will have a transformative affect on the availability of and access to Australian data and should be supported and funded appropriately.

[1] http://www.crcsi.com.au/research/3-spatial-infrastructures/ 

[2] http://www.anzlic.gov.au/foundation-spatial-data-framework 

[3] https://2026agenda.com/ 

[4] http://www.neii.gov.au/about

[5] http://www.bom.gov.au/environment/doc/national-principles-for-environmental-information.pdf 

</comment-BB>

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 19 Mar 2018, at 22:24, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> An update on our suggestions for the next Open Government National Action Plan:
> 
> * We've included review feedback from scores of people, and a concise introduction, which starts:
> 
> Government bodies are continually duplicating effort. Why? Old acquisition processes have emphasised "value for money" and "mitigation of risk". However, in the digital economy, success indicators additionally include “effectiveness of collaboration”, “sustainability in the face of rapid innovation” and “resilience to monopolistic behaviours”. We need to consider these new indicators in our future purchasing guidelines. 
> 
> ... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#>
> * We've incorporated feedback from ~ 20 people so far. If you want review access, and to see review comments, please email me to request it.
> * We're looking for technically savvy people who understand and believe that open government can collaborate better, to add their signatures to add gravity to the letter. Ask me for document access, or email me your name and big title for me to add for you.
> All the best,
> 
> Cameron Shorter
> On 5/3/18 8:27 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Folks, 
>> 
>> Thanks to those of you who have reviewed the response to the proposed Open Government National Action Plan. And I know a number of you are planning to add more feedback this week. (In a nutshell: The response explains Open Government needs to learn how to collaborate as effectively as Open Source communities, and what government needs to change to make this happen). 
>> 
>> OSIA folks and Linux Australia Council, I'm formally requesting that this letter be presented jointly by Open Source Industry Australia (OSIA) and Linux Australia. What is involved in getting this permission? 
>> 
>> A status update: 
>> 
>> * The Linux Journal has offered to publish a piece on this. I'll be reaching out to other publications in the next couple of weeks to invite them to publish too. (Suggestions of publications welcomed). 
>> 
>> * I've incorporated most changes suggested so far. I've had a couple of people suggest a better introduction / exec summary - which I'll be working on. 
>> 
>> * I'm hoping to collate all preliminary feedback within the next 2 weeks (by ~ 16 March). 
>> 
>> * Deadline for delivery of our response is 30 March. 
>> 
>> Document is here: 
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#> 
>> 
>> Warm regards, Cameron 
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/2/18 8:52 am, Cameron Shorter wrote: 
>>> The Australian Government has asked for feedback on how they are going at Open Government, and I've started a draft response. I'm really keen to make sure that this response is well constructed because I think that if listened to, understood, and acted upon, then we can make a huge difference to the effectiveness of Open Government worldwide - and by extension, to Open Source as well. 
>>> 
>>> If you have a chance to read and provide review comments, I'd be very grateful. Email me directly to get review access. 
>>> 
>>> (It will take ~ 10 minutes to read. Longer if you take time to think about how things should be reworded and consider what is missing and should be included.) 
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#heading=h.5zu4u4o3l7zi <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNdh4_A_cIpaHqLRFOgpvAY3JSo0Ueraam39UHFOGHs/edit#heading=h.5zu4u4o3l7zi> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
> Open Technologies Consultant
> 
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
> _______________________________________________
> Aust-NZ mailing list
> Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/aust-nz/attachments/20180321/565dc45c/attachment.html>