Nick Leaton wrote:
That's not the cost. It's just a proposed cost to roll it out else where.
Umm, no, as far as I'm aware, I'm correct. LoveLewisham existed before
FixMyStreet, and that is the proposal to expand that to become
LoveCleanStreets, approved and then launched. There's a more detailed
cost document somewhere, I think it's this:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item6LoveCleanStreetsappendix%20(2).pdf
ATB,
Matthew
How much has been paid so far for the software when there is a public
domain version already available?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Somerville
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This has been discussed before. No need for an FOI request, the cost
of LoveCleanStreets is here:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item6LoveCleanStreetscover.pdf
As you can see from that document, part of it is to provide a
two-way API so that other sites (FixMyStreet is mentioned) can feed
in requests. I believe we're hoping to meet with Lewisham at some
point. It certainly does integrate with their back-end systems, yes,
and hopefully FixMyStreet will be able to feed into it better in the
future.
ATB,
Matthew
Francis Irving wrote:
If the system did have those extra features, that would definitely
justify them building their own system, IMHO. Ideally there'd be
standard protocols, and FixMyStreet would integrate with them,
but meanwhile...
By "extra features" here I mean that anyone should be able to
see all the internal correspondence as it happens about the
issue. Anyeon should be able to see what day the maintenance
van is schedule to go there.
If it can't be fixed just yet, there should be an explanation.
Maybe it is cheaper to fix the problem with a bunch of other
similar problems later. Maybe they are over worked and don't have
enough money to employ more maintenance vans. Maybe they are
always busy on this day, or at this time of year, and know that
next month it'll be quiet and they can catch up.
So yes, that kind of exposure to the internal database, in a clear
usable way, would justify it.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:36:18AM +0100, Mark Pack wrote:
>From what (little) I know of the Lewisham system, I
suspect the
motivation (rightly or wrongly) will have been the back-end
admin.
I believe Lewisham's system was design to be very closely
integrated
with the systems the council / their contractors use both so
that the
whole process can be managed more efficiently and so the
public can
login to see exactly where the item has got to in the system.
I think it's true to say that goes beyond what a council can
do with
FixMyStreet, but by all means put me right...
On 16 April 2010 09:16, Etienne Pollard <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
How about putting in a Freedom of Information request to
London Councils,
who funded the work:
http://www.lovecleanstreets.org/Help/About links
to
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/capitalambition/default.htm
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:09 AM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There is nothing like duplicating an existing system.
My immediate question, is how much local government
has spent on this.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
--
Nick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
