Hi Cameron,
Since I am not a Australian citizen I cannot sign this document, but it
reflects a great deal of what I would like to see in NZ. So this is a very
useful document for me. Thank you for this work.
My perspectives are from inside government but I hope you find them
complementary to your thoughts.
First, an idea that I am trying to pitch her in NZ is to create both policies
and mechanisms within government that encourage contributions (in kind, in
dollars or otherwise depending on the FOSS resource) to open source projects
that a government department may choose to use to support their mission. In
part this is risk reduction from the point of view of the agency. It is also
the right thing to do. If you rely on a FOSS project than surely it is in the
agency's benefit to ensure that the project continues and is well managed. A
few problems this idea addresses are:
- The view that FOSS is free of costs. Generally agencies today
understand that this is not the case, but there is a lack of koha culture that
encourages contributions. This should be replace with a culture that expects
people who use a resource to donate to its maintenance like the recommended
donation box at a museum.
- There may exist no channel by which an agency can contribute back or if
the do, this may be discouraged as unnecessary expenditures. It may in fact be
illegal in some jurisdictions. Appropriate changes in policy and the
development of mechanism by which these contributions can be fairly made is
critical. This must include oversight to discourage corruption.
- The business health of FOSS projects will be increased bythe
jurisdictions that adopt these policies and mechanisms. Every FOSS project in
the world will want their software used by a government that has implemented
such.
Also, the issue of cross government collaboration that you raise in
Recommendations 13 & 14 are important. I found this to be less of a problem
when I worked in the states. Being a highly legalistic culture, this issue was
typically address through the use of legally binding Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) that accompanied the sharing of funds and objectives.
Such agreements were not easily broken by upper management and because of this
lent projects a firm mandate.
These are a couple of top of mind ideas I would like to contribute if useful.
I may share more later after I have a chance to digest this more fully.
Do you mind if I use some of these ideas you have presented here in New Zealand?
Cheers,
Byron Cochrane
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018, at 10:52 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
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
> Open Technologies Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aust-NZ mailing list
> Aust-NZ@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz
--
Byron Cochrane
cochran...@eml.cc
_______________________________________________
Aust-NZ mailing list
Aust-NZ@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz
