This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By Andy Oram
June 16, 2009
This article was originally published on the O’Reilly Media web site. The article is the first in a series leading up to the Personal Democracy Forum.
The Personal Democracy Forum will hold its sixth annual conference at the end of this month. The theme, "how technology and the Internet are changing politics, democracy, and society," has been central to O'Reilly's work over the past few years (and a theme on which we're holding a summit of our own in September). Over the next two weeks I'll write three blogs on the Radar site to get some of my current thoughts off of my chest, clearing some space so that when I get to the PDF conference itself, my blogs can focus on its events and statements made by its participants.
This blog covers:
The grand vision for government/public collaboration is a set of feedback loops that intensify the influence of the collective will on government policy. A feedback loop might consist of a cycle like this:
At any step, a failure by any of the responsible actors to follow through will leave the process hanging and discourage future projects in open participation.
This doesn't mean every project needs to include all four steps. The public may benefit from government data without offering feedback, and programmers could put their work under an open source license or into the public domain for the benefit of the government or members of the public without asking them to share more data. Agencies can also use programs to improve internal coordination instead of working with the public. But the full four steps serve as a canonical model for government/public collaboration.
Successful examples already exist for each step. As I write this, Data.gov has 261 data sets and 30 tools; thousands more data sets are promised soon. Appeals for donations of code, such as Vivek Kundra's Apps for Democracy in Washington, DC and the Sunlight Foundation's Apps for America, show that coders will play their part, at least in the current atmosphere of enthusiasm for the new initiative. And the public has responded to requests for data.
But at the federal level, we need to dance a few rounds of the full cycle before feeling confident that open processes are fully entrenched. I'll return to this theme in the last section of this article. The cycles of public participation will teach lessons, of course, that feed into a still larger cycle of constant experimentation and improvement.
As public participation moves forward, it's worth remembering that resistance to the free flow of incoming and outgoing information is not irrational. The resistance spring from healthy coping mechanisms learned by individuals and organizations learned over their lifetimes. I have already published and solicited comments on a list of fundamental questions on government participation; in this article I describe two such issues that play a special role in resistance to information sharing.
A couple months ago, I read a stirring report from a federal agency manager trying to sound out the Administration concerning how much the agency ought to reveal. The manager was stunned and inspired by the response of Bev Godwin, a prominent director at the White House and General Services Administration, who advised talking about the bad things as well as the good and soliciting negative as well as positive feedback.
Vulnerability is the keystone of transparency and openness. Online forums, if they are run democratically and competently, encourage vulnerability through a combination of self-correcting mechanisms:
This list may present online forums in a bit too rosy a light. But they do permit social norms that protect vulnerable people, even if the norms don't function perfectly. The real problem comes when words leave these forums and end up in other environments not subject to the same rules.
Government staff have already witnessed too many negative experiences in traditional, non-virtual settings. They have seen what happens when a comment is taken out of context and bandied about in the broadcast or print media, introduced into court testimony, or used as ammunition in partisan debates. They know that comment posted on the Web can be fodder for the same opinion machine--and are in fact even more dangerous because the Web makes them more visible.
That's not fair. It's very hard for anyone outside an agency to judge why it came down on one side of a debate or what that decision's long-term effects will be. Most agency actions are a complex fermentation blending the data that was gathered, assessments of the data's accuracy, assessments of the possible trends indicated by the data, consultations with the public (yes, outsiders are routinely consulted), judgments about Congress's intent, judgments about the interests of the Administration, and more. But groups with a cause like to ascribe one-dimensional reasons for key agency decisions and mine public statements for corroborating evidence.
This doesn't mean that all agencies are honest and act in the public interest. Plenty of bad government decisions have been made under pressure from well-organized special interests or to pay off political donors. One role of civil society is to expose these influences--that's what open government and the Personal Democracy Forum are all about. So we want more of these online forums. But we also need to protect the agencies whom we expect to use the forums. To encourage the necessary vulnerability, we have to combat those who abuse the results.
Journalism is starting to incorporate its own feedback loops and open its pages. Elections and policy debates are also monitored by the blogosphere. So some forums are becoming friendlier to the cause of vulnerability (the court system is unlikely ever to change). But it will be a long time before it's safe to lay out one's thoughts in an open, self-policing community.
The previous section mentioned the possibility of a "mob scene," and if people putting out information must be able to tolerate being vulnerable, those requesting input from the public have to deal with a potentially low signal-to-noise ratio.
We need not look far for an example. Take last month's brainstorming session on open government, launched by the White House and the Office of Science and Technology. It drew over 1,000 submissions in a single week. (Even more are on the site now, but they arrived after the official close of the session.)
The thousand submissions offered quite a smorgasbord for a group led by the new Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government, Beth Noveck, to spoon through. They ended up with many intriguing ideas. But the gathering of ideas was simply a suggestion box, not real crowdsourcing. The web site offered no tools for editing, combining, and culling entries (and there would be inadequate time to use such tools anyway). The only aspect reminiscent of group behavior was a casual and anonymous rating system, which played little role in the results.
And that's a relief. After all, how many Americans would be able to assess the Office of Open Government created by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, or the potential for Cooperative Research and Development Agreements to help convert government data and applications to open source? Both of these projects earned a place in the results, even though the Florida model got only 24 votes and the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements only 46. (Although they might have conceivably been mentioned in an earlier brainstorming session conducted among government workers, I couldn't find them in the publicly posted comments.)
In response to a question about the voting, Noveck wrote me, "We wanted to encourage the National Academy of Public Administration to try different voting techniques. They started out by allowing voting by unregistered users, and later restricted it to registered users. Given the change, we didn't want to disadvantage anyone who participated. Consequently, we viewed the voting as informative but not determinative. On our weblog, only registered users can vote on comments."
As her statement indicates, the second phase of this transparency project has already sprouted more of the checks and balances found in mature discussion forums. We can expect the Administration to wend its way toward systems that gather useful opinions from self-organized groups of qualified commentators, the model pioneered by Noveck in her Peer to Patent project.
But will the White House have the time and resources to establish a foothold for a solid and lasting open government program? That depends on public tolerance for the Administration as a whole.
Their rage has been directed at the heads of the financial industry. No peasant at the time of the French Revolution felt more hatred for Marie Antoinette than some of the comments I've seen about AIG. In addition, the current conditions of recession and financial uncertainty breed mistrust toward all three branches of government, and fear toward anyone who could seem to wangle an extra advantage over other Americans.
I'm not going to factor in the recent murders of law enforcement officers, Dr. George Tiller, and others because I'm sure the hate crimes were caused by lots of diverse factors, and it's unclear whether they represent a widespread cultural movement. We have plenty to worry about just by considering problems that will undeniably have a broad impact on Americans.
Over the coming year, lots of homes will continue to be foreclosed (because Congress failed to put a system in place to stop them), a blight that hits many neighborhoods like a dry Katrina. This ongoing crisis will be joined by credit card crisis (because Congress's bill didn't do much to stop that either) and perhaps already a student debt crisis. The Administration has its own challenges, waging two untraditional wars that nobody knows how to win and tinkering with a global financial system that always cracks its casings.
Open government doesn't deserve to be at the mercy of current political controversies. It did not originate with the Obama administration, and it doesn't require a Democratic Party philosophy. The George W. Bush administration took some steps toward open government (often forgotten amongst all the complaints over their unsavory maneuvers and information withholding). The Bill Clinton administration took steps too. But Obama is making it a centerpiece.
This gives us more hope than ever for openness, but ties its fortunes to the larger sphere of activities by the Administration and federal government.
To establish a foothold, openness needs some early, impressive success stories. Federal CTO Vivek Kundra has said his initiatives will prove themselves by saving money, although that certainly isn't his sole aspiration. If the Administration can land a few universally recognized successes--budgetary or otherwise--and especially if it can run through the whole cycle I laid out at the beginning of this article, such efforts will be continued by future Administrations.
Next article: Twenty-five hundred years of Government 2.0.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.