On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:31:27AM +0000, Seb Bacon wrote:
> There is a lot of space dedicated to how much requests cost (a total
> of 900,000 requests at an average cost of £160 - £254), to how
> authorities view the costs as being too high (e.g. opportunity costs
> of staff having to deal with requests other than their day jobs), and
> to the subject of vexatious requests.
I'd really question if there is a cost, given docs exist anyhow, it's
just their indexing system / taxonomies don't work, or they don't
publish by default.
<whamhoosive over simplification, there>
A standard format (note: I now sit on the (Shadow) Data Standards
Panel) for common things really should be in existance, along with the
point-of-entry meta stuff, to facilitate greater search.
> On the one hand, the WDTK team is committed to discouraging any
> non-serious requests. And in the context of severe budget cuts, it's
> clear that consicentious FOI officers are suffering [4]. Perhaps one
> thing we can do is add a note during the request process about the
> average cost of an FOI request (and/or an internal review)? Just
> along the lines of "please consider if this request is important
> enough to justify the average cost of answering it" (though worded
> much better than that, of course!).
Or, indeed, better training on *how* to respond to FOI Requests -- if
using an exemption, state that. Actually respond on time; perhaps we
could provide iCal feeds for authorities: "WDTK FOI Request X <link> due in 2
days"
> On the other hand, there is zero space in the report dedicated to the
> economic benefits of FOI (or the costs of *not* doing it) --
> understandably, because it's impossible to measure. Anyone who's not
> seen Chris Taggart's excellent piece about the economics of open data
> [5] should read it!
Along with all the juicy information being withheld under the
commercial confidentiality /
publically-funded-in-part-but-not-by-a-FOIable-body mess.
> statistics that might help underpin the economic benefits of FOIA.
> Perhaps some measure of "reach" for the data that we've published
> (based on how high a lot of it comes in google searches, and on our
> own Analytics)?
perhaps, also, plus social-media stuff, to assess how people are
discussing things / reach that way, too.
--
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter as if he were a man, but if
he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"
-- Richard Feynman
_______________________________________________
developers-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
Unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
