> My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in > public about these things is often just the final act in an > irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a > done deal.
You mean a situation like Section 92a ? --------------------------------------------------- Keri Henare [e] [email protected] [m] 021 874 552 [w] www.kerihenare.com On 29/04/2009, at 12:28 PM, Kent Parker wrote: > > My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in > public about these things is often just the final act in an > irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a > done deal. > > > > On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, Mark Rickerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think the idea of a cultural portal is a bad one, but I have >> never felt NZLive was a good realization of this idea. However I >> remain unconvinced with the arguments about wasting taxpayers money >> because the vast majority of 'waste' goes directly into Wellington's >> local economy anyway (it's easy to understand why others feel >> differently), but I do agree in the case that the money has clearly >> been squandered. I'm not sure how clear it is in this case, the only >> empirical evidence seems to be the graph of traffic stats. >> >> What nobody has raised is that this outcome is might be due in no >> small part to the private sector contractors who made the site >> lacking >> the complete vision (or perhaps the $$ they were demanding) to >> produce >> something that lived up to the concept and promise of a cultural >> portal, and instead has become a basic events guide site. >> >> Most of the issues being expressed about what NZLive should or should >> not be doing are not just a case of government management >> (mismanagement if you insist), but are emergent from the relationship >> between the government and private sector. To a large extent, >> government departments rely on the good judgment of their business >> and >> design partners to guide them. >> >> When agencies enter into these relationships, there is not >> necessarily >> a clear pathway from the high level rhetoric of ministers, to the >> actual administration of funding and management of projects. That's >> just a simple fact of any hierarchical organization. >> >> A lot of people arguing about this kind of spending don't realize how >> much of our educational and cultural fabric is derived from this >> funding, and how impoverished we would be without the various things >> that are being funded. Spending money is not synonymous with wastage, >> each case has to be assessed in context. >> >> I would be hesitant to publicly lambast government and MCH, without >> first knowing the details of these relationships and the lines of >> responsibility. Promoting arts and culture is a part of MCH's >> mandate, >> and whether or not NZLive achieves this, it is designed to achieve >> this, which is enough to justify its existence from a funding >> perspective. Looking at the documents it's clear that this project >> was >> initiated long before EventFinder launched, so at the point of its >> initiation, there would have been no such service. >> >> The problem I have trying to process some of the arguments here, is >> that apart from the graph of traffic, I don't see what the evidence >> is >> that the website has failed to meet its objectives. Overpriced, yes. >> Failure, unclear. >> >> For what it's worth, I would rather see the NZLive money spent on >> arts >> funding directly. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
