Warm, wet and fuzzy

Blathering about 'the digital community' and 'government 2.0' often strikes me as having the same characteristics as a one-year-old's bunny rug ... warm, fuzzy and wet.

Tne national government's grandly-named and presumably well-intended Government 2.0 Taskforce has invited public comment on its draft report - Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0.

The 159 page Engage report [PDF] is a document that oh very surprisingly exhorts the national bureaucracy "to embrace Web 2.0 tools to deepen democracy and engage citizens".

A more appropriate title might have featured the word 'question', with taskforce members and their audience being encouraged to more actively question what we mean by 'Government 2.0' - often a digital potemkin village (lots of funky widgets and self-congratulation about 'engagement' through blogs, tweets and other online bling) behind which it's business as usual.

The central recommendation calls for an 'Open Government Directive' - someone's embraced the EU lingo - from the Government to treat official information as "a national public resource" that should be as freely and as openly available as possible. The recommendation is consistent with recent government statements on Freedom of Information and establishment of an Information Commissioner. Only a grinch, such as myself, would comment that the nitty gritty of closing National Archives offices is a tad grimmer and won't for example be fixed by a tweet or two.

The Directive would apparently result in public sector information being "released proactively" unless there are strong reasons not to do so, with what are described as "creative commons" licences inviting people to "quote, share and transform" without seeking official permission.

More of the same, alas, in the recommendation that government agencies and public servants use Web 2.0 tools "such as blogs, wikis and online fora" to "engage with citizens, each other and likeminded professionals around the world".

The Government 2.0 Taskforce Chair, Dr Nicholas Gruen explained that -

If Government 2.0 is realised, citizens won't just be consulted by government they'll actively collaborate with government.

Government 2.0 can draw all those with the enthusiasm, expertise and crucial local knowledge to collaborate in the process of government.

By using these technologies and effectively inviting the community into its workings developing policy and delivering services, Government 2.0 lets us improve the myriad ways government activities help our society, our economy and our democracy thrive.

And so-on and so-forth as we dance digitally to the big rock candy mountain.

The draft report indicates that

As we have seen during our work, as people engage, possibilities – foreseeable and otherwise – are unlocked through the invention, creativity and hard work of citizens, business and community organisations. The government’s job is to liberate much more of its information as a key national asset. ...

Everything, from enabling data to be re-used, to forming and participating in online communities in their areas of interest will help build a public service that is smarter, more responsive, more strategic and personally rewarding

And of course -

We have little to lose, and much to gain from moving boldly in this direction. Ultimately, the invitation to engage is an invitation to get involved and get things done. This requires us to accelerate the policy, organisational and cultural changes needed so we can reap the rewards of Government 2.0

Onwards, cybercomrades, to the digital millennium, where we'll all be hip, rich and wrinkle-free!

The draft report is replete with shibboleths such as "info-philanthropy" and "the vibe- the culture of Web 2.0", "intrinsic motivation and the meritocracy of contribution", "hack, mash and innovate!"

Strip away the jargon, however, and much of the report is the traditional connectivity wet dream - we'll all come together, as one, with inter-office video - and an iteration of the expectations (even the mechanisms, such as a simplified whole of government metadata set) articulated in reports under the auspices of the Hon Barry Jones nearly three decades ago. Brave, self-consciously - or just self-congratulatorily - visionary, a fine romp for those involved (and those in need of a headline now that people are bored with the ascension of the Mad Monk) but ultimately going nowhere? Who now remembers the Commission for the Future or the Australia As An Information Society report. For all the derision directed at Mr Jones, the reports released by the Commonwealth government around 2000 (remember the end-of-history/economic-cycle and friction-free-economy fever) were equally zany.

I'd be more impressed if the report offered a sceptical comment on claims from the likes of Kevin Kelly ("internet searches generate total economic value of somewhere between 0.5 and 5% of US GDP") and uncritical restatement of hype such as Web 2.0 means that "A cancer patient can find others in the same predicament and, in addition to gaining mutual support can share information about drug reactions, doctors and specialists". (Quite, and they can order some magic water and an alfoil beanie or two while they're online.)

Hardheaded appraisals of blogging seem to have slipped by some of the report's authors, judging by statements such as -

Blogs permit rapid and highly informed discussion of all manner of subjects. One benefit of this is the rapid identification of those with the knowledge to speak authoritatively on a subject, however arcane. This potentially 'turbocharges' the process by which reputations are forged and authoritative insights are arrived at and disseminated.

Drink, drink, the digital kool-ade.

Meanwhile, in the UK the national government - now smellier than the Govt 2.0 Taskforce - has released another set of 'e-government' policy proposals, this time labelled Smarter Government [PDF].

A "commitment" on "public data principles" (public data being "government-held non-personal data that are collected or generated in the course of public service delivery") indicates that public data -

will be published in reusable, machine readable form; will be available and easy to find through a single easy to use online access point (www.data.gov.uk); will be published using open standards and following the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium ... more public data will be released under an open licence which enables free reuse, including commercial reuse; Data underlying the Government's own websites will be published in reusable form for others to use.

Of course there is a "commitment" (yes Minister) to "radically opening up data and promoting transparency", with an explanation that

Entitlements guarantee access to and quality of services, and digital technology enables more services to be joined up and online. It is equally vital to use new technology to harness people's appetite and ability to drive up service standards. In the past, much public service improvement was driven by the force of government targets set by central government. In the future, much more of the pressure for improvement can come from the local level.

Ultimately, a more informed citizen is a more empowered citizen. In a modern democracy citizens rightly expect government to show where money has been spent and what the results have been. With the interactive capabilities of the web, government can offer citizens and communities the chance to pass comment on services in real time.

The shining example of that comment is dobbing in graffiti by SMS.

Later this week the US national government will be launching its "comprehensive Open Government Plan", promoted as

furthering the President's commitment to increasing transparency and accountability in Washington and ensuring greater access and information for the American people.

The launch will be undertaken by "US Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra and US Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra" and of course feature a webcast.