Archive for the ‘egovernment’ category

Open Government vs Government 2.0

Australia and New Zealand have a proud history of calling the same thing different names, for no reason other than etymological coincidence. Duvet vs doona, thongs vs jandals, togs vs cossies. These differences are defended fiercely, in a kind of friendly rivalry.

It’s the same with open government. In 2009 the Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce developed a significant report that went on to inform government policy. The term stuck, and the open government communities in Australia are called Gov2QLD, Gov2NSW, Gov2ACT.

In NZ from 2008 we had open government barcamps, then Open NZ was formed. In 2011 the Declaration on Open and Transparent Government was passed. We’ve settled on ‘open government’ or in abbreviated form ‘opengovt’.

Despite these differences, the formation of open government policy in both countries, and the development of related communities of practice, has involved a lot of trans-Tasman exchange of ideas. Through visits to NZ by people like Senator Kate Lundy, Pia Waugh, and Nick Gruen, collaborative standards bodies like the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), and participation in conferences in Australia by our government officials, open government is a journey ourselves and our cousins across the ditch are travelling together.

The paths we take won’t be exactly the same. There are many differences, Australia has a state and federal system and two houses of parliament, NZ just has central and local government. Fundamentally though, we both come from the Westminster system, have cultures founded on egalitarian values, and share much in common in our economies and place in the Pacific.

In that spirit, I’m off to Australia this week. After my long stint head down at the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, it’s time to renew and strengthen ties. I’ll be speaking at a range of events, and hoping to learn lots from Australian progress in open data, shared services, geospatial data infrastructure, and participative engagement.

Among other things I’ll be speaking at:

I’ll blog what I learn as I go.

Christchurch 2.0

To build Christchurch 2.0, the legacy systems of the past, on computers, in organisations, and in people’s brains will not be adequate for the task. We have to upgrade.

At the TEDxEQChch event today, 3 months after the devastating earthquake in Christhchurch, Bjarke Ingels, an architect from Denmark, sent us a message encouraging us to build ‘Christchurch 2.0′. His architecture is based on thinking in new and very different ways.

Since the week before Easter I’ve been working with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), setting up online communications and engagement processes. I had the privilege of going into the EOC in the Art Gallery and talking to the web and geospatial information systems (GIS) staff involved in providing information on the web and social media during the emergency response.

I learned that before the earthquake, it was very difficult for staff in local government to use social media, cloud computing and open data. To do so would have required a large and detailed policy, and no one initiative could afford to develop that policy. After the earthquake staff piled into the Art Gallery, set up temporary desks and laptops, and got the response underway.  They used whatever worked, and had permission to experiment, make mistakes and continuously improve. They found that social media let them gauge the social mood in real time, and identify where people were frustrated, upset or confused due to lack of information. They answered questions directly, and fed information through to the media and web teams to plug the gaps. The GIS staff set up open data APIs to get water and sewage network data to the construction contractors in real time.

The earthquake was terrible. 30-40% of the buildings in our central city have been destroyed. I’ve said goodbye to six sets of friends in the last three weeks who’ve had to leave the city due to lost homes, jobs and businesses. One of my accountants died, and his colleagues were trapped under desks in the dark, in a collapsed building for several hours. There are many people still doing it hard, and in real need.

The silver lining is that much of the inertia that prevented organisations from using new and innovative approaches, has been swept away. We’ve seen that new ways of thinking work, and they work better than legacy thinking of the past. The CCC have understood this, and will be using a web based planning and consultation tool for drafting and seeking feedback on the Central City Recovery Plan.

We have an incredible opportunity before us. People have learned that it can be safe to do things differently. They have experiential evidence that doing things different works. As a friend said “bullshit has gone out the window”. The pressure on us, and the speed at which we must get things done means legacy methods just won’t be sufficient.  We have an opportunity to use the latest thinking, our own, and from overseas. Just like Japan used the leading thinking of Edwards Demming to rebuild after World War II and create a dynamic economy, we can use the leading edge approaches today to build a city of tomorrow.

We have the opportunity to build Christchurch 2.0

To do so we’re going to have to upgrade our thinking.

Action over words – combining electronic and analogue facilitation

At the Open Government Data Barcamp this Saturday I was asked to facilitate the closing session. The purpose of the session was to come up with a shortlist of projects to be worked on the next day at the hackfest. Nat Torkington, while not physically present at the event had been looking over our shoulder virtually on Twitter, and had beseech-ed us to leave the weekend with some real things built. How on earth was I going to pull this off?

There were 160 people at the Barcamp, and three rooms, a large auditorium, a medium sized room, and a cafeteria. Earlier in the day I’d facilitated a session on environmental data management in the medium sized room, with about 40 people. That was about capacity for that room, so I really had to use the auditorium. The challenge with facilitating in an auditorium style setting is that it’s very hard to get people up and moving to do Post-it note clustering exercises, and small group work is impossible. I only had 45 minutes to get suggestions brainstormed and short listed, and I wanted to involve everyone in the process.
During the day the 60% or so of people with Internet connected devices (iPhones, laptops and netbooks) had been twittering the event using the #opengovt tag. I’d been keeping an eye on all the tweets using Twitterfall.

So I decided to experiment with a hybrid electronic/analogue approach. I got the people with Internet connected devices to sit in the middle of the rows, and those without to sit at the edges. I then got a couple of people to hand out Post-it notes and pens to those without devices, and asked them to write suggestions for projects to work on tomorrow, one per Post-it. I also asked those with devices to tweet the suggestions using the #opengovt tag.
I then had the Twitterfall projected onto the large screen so everyone could see the suggestions rolling in. There was one every 30 seconds or so for a good 15 or 20 minutes. Dan Randow and Jonathan Hunt were on stage with laptops summarising the suggestions on the wiki.

Once people had finished writing suggestions on the Post-it notes I got those on the edges of each of the rows up on stage, and got them to put the Post-its on a wall I’d covered with large sheets of paper. I gave them the standard instruction to ‘put like with like’ and keep moving the Post-its until they had stabilised into categories. Two of the people were given vivid markers and asked to draw circles around the groups of Post-its and give each group a title.

After this was all done we had a set of suggestions, with an emerging set of priorities based on the categories of Post-its and the frequency of suggestion tweets on particular topics. I took photos of the Post-it clusters and emailed them to Mark Harris who later that evening summarised it all down to six projects for the Hackfest.

The projects were:

In the morning these were written up on big sheets of paper at the front of the room, and Mark asked for expressions of interest in working on each project. The project didn’t need any work currently, as it was waiting on software from the Sunlight Foundation to be ready to migrate to. The Transport project was seen as a bit difficult to achieve on the day, so the remaining four projects were selected, and a table assigned for each project. People got to work, and the results so far can be seen by following the links above.

For a much more comprehensive write up of the whole Barcamp, see Julie’s fantastic post on Idealog.

3 Pillars of Open Government

Can politicians embrace social computing in a way that is open, honest and truly participatory, rather than simply cynical bandwagon jumping? Was David Cameron, UK opposition leader wrong when he said that “too many tweets might make a twat“? It seems so.

The visit of Senator Kate Lundy to New Zealand, and the talk she gave to a packed room at Archives NZ on the evening of 26 August, proved, irrevocably, to me, that at least one politician is using social computing in a very powerful and authentic way.

Here’s what Kate had to say:

The ’3 Pillars of Open Government’ are:

  1. Citizen Centric Services
  2. Facilitating Innovation
  3. Open and Transparent Government

1. Citizen Centric Services

There are three tiers of government in Australia, local, state and federal. One of the big challenges is achieving an appropriate level of coordination between these three tiers, so you as a citizen you are not mired in the mesh of bureaucratic red tape. For example, even moving house and getting a new broadband connection can hit each of these three spheres.

How do we deploy geospatial data and geocoding data held by government? One site that demonstrates this is the Australian stimulus package projects and investments. where you can tap in your postcode and it will show you the projects in your area, how the money is being spent, and how the projects are going.

How do we engage citizens in the process of service delivery? The Australian Govt2.0 taskforce is the way the current government is codifying the potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate citizen engagement. Government agencies are large bureaucracies that often act as silos. The Govt2.0 taskforce aims to provide input to Cabinet on a number of policy ideas that would never have come up from individual agencies, or even through a set of agencies working together. It includes a blend of both public and private sector leaders in digital innovation. The taskforce reports in December and has been asked to come to Cabinet with some excellent ideas that can be implemented immediately, and some examples of exciting things we can do in the future. The taskforce is focusing on showcasing innovations that are happening in the public sector and then can be emulated, mashed up and remixed. Kate said that “Unless we create environments where we can ask citizens how they want things done, we’re crippling our ability as a nation to innovate.”

2.  Facilitating Innovation

The Govt2.0 methodology was designed as an example of facilitating innovation through digital technology. The core focus of facilitating innovation is about opening access to government data so both public and private institutions can build useful services and tools on top of it. This adds value to the datasets, as well as providing better ability for collaboration between the government and broader community. An example of this in action was the recent emergency management response and coordination in the Victorian bushfires in Australia.

Kate mentioned the report that’s just been released in NZ on the significant economic benefits of open access to spatial data. In a digital environment, technologies enable collaborations that provide economic benefit and can enhance the way government works. It’s about not being afraid of sharing.

3. Open and Transparent Government

All constituencies want greater accountability from Government.

Australia has made a decision at Cabinet level to change the default position of government in relation to public sector information. Government now will make everything publicly available unless there is a reason not to. There are still complexities and costs around the Freedom of Information Act, and these are a profound barrier. The policy statement from Cabinet however changes everything. A default position of openness is a great place to be. The time the most dynamic change is possible is during a change in government, and during a recession.

Australia has a reform of the Freedom of Information Act legislation underway in order to reduce the complexities and costs of information that would otherwise be publicly available. Their National Archives policies on openness have helped with this process. They also have an Information Commissioner Bill before parliament currently, Kate believes that this role will be quite central in guiding agencies to make their information more accessible in a digital environment.

She said “Open standards are absolutely critical, they are tax payers’ insurance against government project cost blowouts in the future.”

Kate made an interesting and important distinction between transparent and accessible government, and transparent and accountable politicians. The line between these is a bit blurry at the moment, and that  conversation needs to be furthered at a public policy level. There is a need to separately understand agency public consultation through social computing technologies, and politicians using the same method to create more open conversation with their constituents. This will get very interesting when the advice politicians are getting from their agencies/officials conflicts with the advice they get from open, social computing enabled engagement with citizens.

I was hugely impressed by Senator Kate Lundy’s enthusiasm, passion, and belief in the viability of increasing openness in government. More on her innovative PublicSphere methods in a subsequent post.

Australasian geospatial metadata, standards, spaghetti and disappearing spacecraft

I’ve just been to the ANZLIC metadata presentation held by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

ANZLIC is the Australia & New Zealand Spatial Information Council. They provide leadership in the collection, management and use of spatial information in Australasia.In Australia they are working on the standards for a national address register, including standards, schema etc, but stop short of the implementation.

They are associated with, but independent from The [Australian] Office of Spatial Data Management facilitates and coordinates spatial data management across Australian Government Agencies.

ANZLIC is working on a range of initiatives, including ANZsi, a spatial marketplace, similar to GeoConnections in Canada. This will provide a marketplace for all spatial resources in Australasia. It will include integration with and to existing supply side infrastructre and initiatives, and anticipates demand side involvement.

They believe that spatial data use is becoming an everyday thing, involving off the shelf technology, increased user knowledge (due to Google Maps, Google Earth etc), and driven in part because at least 80% of government transactions have a ‘where’ component. They challenged us to think of what fell into the 20%, and the audience couldn’t come up with any government transactions that don’t have a spatial component.

ACIL Tasman did a study which estimated that inefficient access to data reduces the direct productivity of some sectors by between 5-15%. (Summary of findings here). ANZLIC sees metadata as an important solution to this problem.

They used the metaphor of a can of spaghetti to explain what metadata is. The can’s label includes a title (product name), an abstract (product description), a statement of quality (99% fat free, no artificial preservatives or colours), instructions on use (heating/cooking directions), a detailed list of fields in the data (the ingredients), and the extent of the data (weight, nutritional information). They also illustrated the importance of the use of standards with this story “Two Teams, Two Measures Equaled One Lost Spacecraft“.

ANZMET Lite is a tool that has been developed by the OSDM, with the help of the jurisdictions. Its target user groups are organisations with up to 30 resources requiring metadata records to be published, contractors who are collecting resources on behalf of clients, and are required to provide metadata records. It allows for the production of linked (connected to the resource) or unlinked metadata records. It also allows for parent/child relationships between metadata. There are a number of classes in the parent/child hierarchy, including dataset, service, model, tile, document, and many others.

There is also the ANZLIC metadata profile, and the profile guidelines, which include a mapping between AGLS / NZGLS and the ANZLIC Metadata Profile.

The tool is pseudo opensource, in that its origins were in the Australian Defence Force, who won’t let it be fully opensourced. You can however get the source code, and modify it, as long as you notify OSDM of the changes, and provide them back.

LINZ is working with MoRST to create a GeoNetwork node for NZ. In the meantime metadata created using ANZMet Lite can be emailed to for external publishing. More information on NZ Geospatial Office activity at

Head in the Clouds?

As an independent consultant I’ve always worked hard to be technology agnostic. This means understanding (and to the extent that I can, using) the full range of operating systems, desktop and server software platforms, stacks, and development tools and languages. It also means mixing and mingling with people from different parts of the IT landscape, including free software advocates, Microsoft evangelists, and everyone in between.

I use Linux, Windows and MacOS on a daily basis, and for the last 10 years have been watching with interest the philosophical and commercial battle between opensource and proprietary software. About three years ago however, I started wondering whether the next big battle wouldn’t be between Microsoft and Linux, but rather it would be between Microsoft and Google.

It first started being described as ‘Application Service Providers’, then ‘Software as a Service’, and it finally seems to have settled on ‘Cloud Computing’. ASPs had promise, but in terms of infrastructure and middleware provision seem to have suffered in part from lack of initial scale to get the required cost benefits. SaaS has had some successes, such as and others.

What’s made me really realise that the space has changed from an idea to a business reality is not the media, the reporting, or the fact that ‘Cloud Computing’ on Google Trends has almost overtaken SaaS. It’s the people, and the business names.

I’m seeing a third set of people emerge, they’re not OpenSource stallwarts, or Microsofties, they’re Cloud junkies. They’re embracing Google Apps, Amazon’s S3 and EC2, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft Azure, Rackspace and others. They’re starting businesses in New Zealand with names like Cloudbreak, Waveadept and Memia Cloud Services Architecture. They’re advocating, promoting, and selling Cloud based solutions. They’re starting to address and answer questions about sovereignty of data, privacy, security, disaster recovery, service level agreements and contracts with cloud providers, and total cost of ownership calculations.

In New Zealand we’ve seen these companies helping Auckland University put 50,000 students on Gmail, and NZPost moving 2,100 staff to Google Apps.

I recently went to an event in Wellington hosted by Cloudbreak and Waveadept.  There were a couple of telling quotes from Google staff:

“Is email [provisioning] core to your business, I hope not because if so you’re in competition with me” (and implicitly, you’re going to lose…)

“Microsoft Office is like Photoshop, every business should have a couple of copies”

I don’t agree or disagree with these statements, but they are telling. They signal a potential shift from the way we’ve been using information technology over the last ten years.

Is cloud computing just an obvious next step after the server virtualisation movement we’ve seen in the last five years? Will organisations move everything to the cloud? Or will they maintain a mix of proprietary/opensource solutions hosted behind the corporate firewall, and couple that with some Cloud based services.

There are some obvious benefits to cloud computing:

  • Reduction in risk of data loss/security breaches due to people losing their laptops or thumbdrives while travelling
  • Cost take out, i.e. switching from a mixed fixed cost (capex) + variable cost (opex), to a purely variable cost model
  • It gets rid of the challenges of building out your own overcrowded server rooms/data centres
  • Improved functionality rolled out in real time, without having to go through painful upgrade cycles
  • Reduced time to value in implementation of new services

There are also some real risks and concerns about:

  • Performance and reliability over Internet connections and the (limited) bandwidth we have in & out of NZ
  • Sovereignty of data (data sitting under different jurisdictions and laws)
  • Control over the data, and restricting others from using it inappropriately
  • Risk of the cloud computing provider holding the data going out of business
  • The implications for staffing levels in IT departments

The SSC recently released a set of guidelines about Government Use of Offshore Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Service Providers to help agencies make good decisions about venturing into the cloud computing realm.

On the small business front, I have a friend who’s started a niche online business providing parent-teacher interview scheduling services for schools. It’s being adopted at a much faster rate than he’d imagined. Although he has expertise in providing web hosting services himself, he’s now very glad he decided to build it in Google App Engine, as it’ll scale to meet the increasing demand in a ‘pay as you go’ fashion.

While the way it will play out is still a little misty, it’s clear cloud computing is going to have a major impact, and I predict we’ll see a lot more startup companies with cloud based metaphors in their names.

In closing, I’m reminded of the ever prescient Mark Andresson, founder of the Netscape browser. In 1999 he started a company called Loudcloud to provide managed Internet services. It was a bit before its time, but even so evolved into a successful business that HP acquired for $1.6B…

Archives 2.0

How do you turn an organisation that has, since its inception, focused on the preservation of print records, into a leading advocate for the government’s digital agenda?

This is the question currently facing Archives NZ. I’ve been working recently on an Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP) for this agency. As a part of this their CIO asked me to write a paper on the way the organisation might use Web 2.0 technologies and approaches to assist in this transition.

They’ve kindly let me publish the paper on my site. Here’s an excerpt:

In order to use Web 2.0 technologies externally it may be necessary to affect culture change internally. It is not uncommon for people who have spent much of their professional careers using traditional methods of taxonomy, records keeping and information management, to be cautious of, or resistant to approaches which are inherently messier and less ordered.

Embracing Web 2.0 methods, and harnessing the power of community contribution means being willing to give up some control. The Archives NZ culture must support this if these kinds of initiatives are to succeed. Peter Van Garderen in a post on his archivematica blog says:

archival institutions are going to have to accept the rise of grassroots archivists. Not as barbarians at the city gates but as value-adding partners that share the goal of preserving historical memories and experiences. In his excellent webcast presentation, Are the Archives Doomed?, Rick Prelinger discusses the emergence of what he calls ‘archives groupies’ and the wonderful, often unexpected results that occur when users are invited to participate in the organization and use of archival collections.”

In exploring the use of Web 2.0 approaches it is very difficult to predict what will work, and what won’t. The best method in this context is to try many things and keep those that are successful. This requires a culture that is tolerant of failure. It must be acceptable for initiatives not to work, as long as people learn from them and adapt as a result.

Download the paper to read more.

Digital Future Summit

Some quotes from the Digital Future Summit:
(in quotes rather when they’re direct quotes, otherwise just notes)

Pamela Minett

Five years ago for teenagers, sitting in your room would be considered antisocial. For teenagers now, not being at your computer, not responding to Facebook messages is antisocial. ‘Facebook time’ rather than face time.

‘Word of mouse’ rather than word of mouth. Connecting to competencies rather than just having them is what counts.

Areti Metuamate

Enabling young people to participate is great, but did the decision makers actually hear and act?

Pete Hodgson

Economic transformation as the heart of our thinking. Necessary for us to achieve the things we wanted to do in education, health and the environment.

“No matter where we’ve gotten to now, it ain’t yet good enough by any means”

Now see ICT as a prerequisite for economic transformation.

Urging you to think of ways that we as NZ Inc can further accelerate the uptake of digital technologies. Let us please now demonstrate that.

Paul Reynolds said that fast broadband is necessary, essential. Finding ways to work together at the infrastructure layer.Rod Drury – “building billion dollar businesses from the beach”

Chris Anderson, Editor-in-Chief, Wired and author “The Long Tail”

The long tail of beer – Beer used to be very bad in the US, because to appeal to mass audiences it had to be very bland. Microbreweries are now enabling good beer in the US, even a gluten free beer. More is different. Zapos sells 750,000 different kinds of shoes. You can now get vegetarian shoes.

Is the world spiky? In terms of concentrations/critical mass of money, culture and opportunity. The long tail however, the Internet is the great leveller. It enables talent to be discovered, it’s easy to find talent in a global market.

Sam Morgan – Trade Me

“People send money to people they have never met for goods they have never seen”. This requires inherent trust within citizens in a country, something we have in NZ, but doesn’t exist in a lot of countries.

“Securing digital trade routes”

Andy Lark

“How do we build a better x to be digital by design?”

Power supply is going to be a big issue. Green IT is essential for success for NZ. We have to find a way to make computing green, otherwise we’ll come up against enormous issues of power consumption.

We’re not training engineers and scientists fast enough to hit our ICT economic transformation goals.

4 rules for exponential enterprises:

  1. Start upstairs – it’s s 3lb problem (your brain)
  2. Timeshift (and placeshift) – it’s a 24/7 business world
  3. Focus – If digital trade routes are the future, SEO automates navigation
  4. Converse – figure out how to engage in conversations online. Figure out how to give people a way to talk about you.

Darryn Melrose, CEO Aim Proximity

“Wake up or die” how the age of connectedness is altering the way business markets, promotes and sells

Lawrence Millar

Narrow casting – niche information at zero marginal cost.

Police Act Review – ran a public consultation process, interacted with 1,200 people. They used a wiki over 8 days and had 5,000 people involved.

Next step is igovt – secure, authenticated, identity management

“There’ll be no transformation without authentication”

Greg Carlyon, Horizons District Council – The Green Rig

The real truth – NZ 45% pure…

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it’s not”

Digital Fabric

I was recently involved in a Digital Strategy refresh consultation meeting with a small group of people from agencies in the conservation and environment sector. During the discussions on the vision the term ‘fabric’ came up. It got me thinking about what a ‘digital fabric’ for New Zealand might mean.

The term fabric has been used in computing for a few years now, in the context of ‘storage fabric’ for virtualisation and storage area networks (SANs). That involves weaving together a number of storage resources into a single flexible layer or fabric that many systems can use.

Gartner has listed computing fabric as one or their top 10 trends for 2008 – “computing fabric involves treating memory, processors and I/O cards as a pooled resource instead of a fixed arrangement”. Again, it’s something flexible, dynamic, and shared.

It was the question of social fabric that really got me thinking though. Social fabric is a lot more than just the physical/financial infrastructure in society. It is enabled by that, but it’s more about the web of trust and human relationships that make a society strong. What does that mean in the digital world? Does it mean that the social fabric becomes more digitally mediated? Proponents of txt, Facebook, Bebo seem likely to think so. Does it mean the social fabric becomes less compartmentalized, less class or ethnically based? Does it mean the social fabric becomes more flexible, less rigid? Advocates of the long tail, e-democracy, and Second Life might agree.

What does this mean for the Digital Strategy 2.0? For me it means thinking about the strategy’s impact not just on having digitally skilled people accessing/contributing content over fast broadband, but also on the way that digital technologies will build relationships, will strengthen the social fabric. This applies equally across communities, business and government. E-government, e-commerce, business alliances are all about relationships. When a nation’s social fabric is strong, anything is possible. How might we benefit from a strong digital fabric, and what would it take to create it?

Barcamp Wellington eGovt

Today I attended the first barcamp in Wellington. It was quite different to the Christchurch one in that it was focused on e-government, and there were four different streams.

Several of the same people who attended GOVIS attended this barcamp, but the atmosphere was completely different. It was relaxed, collaborative, and people seemed to be willing to share more openly and talk about contentious issues.

It was interesting watching the programme get developed. Topics were written on post-its and they were put by presenters into timeslots on a big schedule sheet. There were three half hour timeslots for each room for each time period (e.g. morning tea to lunch). The session post-its seemed to self organise into related topics in each room/time period, without any overt coordination of this.

There was open access to wifi so there was a fair amount of live blogging on the event. Bloggers are listed on the barcamp site. Here’s my mindmap of the event.

At the end we did 3 word summaries of the day. Here are some of them:

good clean fun; collaboration action next; introductions variety wordprocessors; yay egovt; change starts here; opportunity understanding; unconferences rock severly; creative constructive connections; make stuff happen; let’s move on; make the web fun; you’re all reallysmart; plotting scheming ranting; great ideas guys; do it again; be the difference; let’s fix it; sco is dead; developers, developers, developers; go the allblacks; resourceful thoughtful people; geeks are cool; web services arrghh; open is good; its about people; shift in power

Then I facilitated (I couldn’t help myself) breaking into small groups to discuss “what’s next”. Here’s my quick write up of the feedback.

Organise small barcamps (in real bars if necessary), tack them on to events that are already happening (e.g. web stock, GOVIS), topics likes digital identity, open govt data, creative commons and privacy commons.

barcamp reality tv, nat hats humans, cat/dog/robot barcamp, code goes to barcamp, what they said, run a hackathon with a deliverable at the end of the day, make a wish foundation for frustrated public services, have a geek roadshow

record what happened here, don’t let it be forgotten. public consultation, discussion papers and policy stage, can we get more of those tagged and put into RSS feeds so you can watch them. some sort of wiki tool to explain and track the process of government, e.g. theyworkforyou. who are the key people. accountability for stopping services.

get more govt people here. get to decision makers. find out what the problems are and have another session just to address them. training on validation, just meet in a bar. document the successes. pick your fights, win them and talk about how you won. mashup government.

wiki around barcamp, standards, connect to microformat wiki. There will be one on the govt guidelines apparently. buy in to microformats. moving towards the semantic web. getting government to get more service focused. 7 x 7 format, people just speak for 7 minutes. aligning opensource with NZ national policy. ownership of egovt needs to be widely held. understanding the users. more rapid content creation. better RFPs, a site where vendors rate govt RFPs.

You can only talk rubbish if you're aware of knowledge.
Karl Pilkington