No Better Time Conference Report Available

Published by Tim on February 8, 2010 in Events. 1 Comment Tags: .

The report from last year’s No Better Time conference is now available: No Better Time: A 2010 Report on Opportunities and Challenges for Deliberative Democracy (PDF, 1.1 MB)

Executive summary

In July 2009, more than 250 campus and community leaders came together at the University of New Hampshire to talk about the “deliberative democracy” field, the tide of civic change on campuses and in communities, and what those changes mean for the practice and teaching of democracy. No Better Time: Promising Opportunities in Deliberative Democracy for Educators and Practitioners (NBT) was hosted by the Democracy Imperative (TDI) and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC), two organizations that work to promote best practices, research, and teaching for a strong democracy.

A number of factors made this conference timely: an historic election, increasing use of dialogue and deliberation in communities across the country, record-setting youth political engagement, a presidential administration that is experimenting with e-democracy to increase transparency and public participation, and a growing interest on campuses (without distinct ownership in any one academic department or administrative office) in teaching democratic principles and practices.

All of these developments seemed to highlight the need for more just, comprehensive, democratic systems and the need to educate and prepare citizens to be more effective participants in those systems. People working in these areas were asking questions about how to “embed” democratic principles and practices in the daily routine of campuses and communities.

The conference gave people a chance to make progress on these challenges as a field. The discussions seemed to coalesce around eight priorities for “embedding” democracy, and conference participants generated a number of plans, proposals, and new activities for moving forward in each area. For each of these priorities, we will give the context preceding No Better Time, summarize the conversation at the conference, and describe what has happened since.

Priority #1 – Rethinking what we call this work (see p. 7)

Priority #2 – Connecting deliberative democracy, advocacy and organizing, and social justice (p. 8)

Priority #3 – Preparing students more comprehensively for citizenship and leadership in a democracy (p. 9)

Priority #4 – Restoring higher education’s role as an agent for democracy and social change (p. 10)

Priority #5 – Fostering international exchanges and initiatives to advance global democracy (p. 12)

Priority #6 – Routinizing and democratizing evaluation and measurement (p. 12)

Priority #7 – Understanding and incorporating online tools for democracy and participation (p. 13)

Priority #8 – Working with the Obama Administration (p. 14)

From the email the conference organizers sent out this morning:

In response to the survey, many people expressed an interest in hosting a local conference like NBT.  So we created a “Step-by-Step Guide” that describes how No Better Time was organized. All of our work product is included, like those witty FAQs and clear instructions on leading a learning exchange.  This is available on line, at http://www.unh.edu/democracy/guidebook.html.
I’m starting to think we really need an appropriate event on the West Coast this year.

Ten Things to Monitor As Agencies Invite Input On Open Government Plans

Published by Tim on February 7, 2010 in E-participation, Public Participation and Research. 9 Comments Tags: , .

Now that a whole lot of agency.gov/open websites are live and many agencies have indeed set up a ”mechanism for the public to [...] [p]rovide input on the agency’s Open Government Plan” it’s time to figure out what to watch out for over the coming weeks and months in order to evaluate the success of these initiatives.

As I noted back in January, my hope is that these new projects will address and improve upon three key issues that we saw during last year’s Open Government Dialogue (namely, lack of convener involvement, insufficient moderation, herding).

All in all, I’ll keep an eye on the following (in no particular order):

  1. Expectation management: Is the agency clear about the scope of their participation initiative and their promise to the public? Do participants know what impact they can reasonably expect and when?
  2. Community ground rules: Every agency should have these “rules of engagement” in place and be ready to enforce them if needed. Bonus points for friendly, easy-to-understand language!
  3. Level of convener involvement/participation: Does the agency become actively engaged in the discussions?
  4. Quality of moderation: Will the agency manage to keep discussions on topic and moderate distractions in a fair but timely manner?
  5. Quantity of participation over time: How many participants will sign up? How much content will they produce? (luckily, IdeaScale exposes a few basic metrics in real time, such as number of ideas, comments, votes and registered users)
  6. Outreach and diversity of participants: Does the agency manage to attract a broad range of participants from various backgrounds? Or do usual suspects dominate the discussions?
  7. Conclusion and impact: This one will be especially interesting as there doesn’t seem to be an end date defined for any of these initiatives. In case of ongoing participation programs, does the agency at least share interim results?
  8. Tech support: Does the agency address technical support questions and resolve any issues in a timely manner?
  9. Project communications: Does the agency offer ways for participants to stay in the loop (or get up to speed quickly) with regard to current state of the discussion, frequently asked questions, highlights, interim results, next steps etc.?
  10. Mood: Overall, how happy is everyone with the process? What’s the energy level? Are things productive? Etc.

What else should be on the radar? Sound off in the comments.

OpenGov Open Feedback Firehose

Published by Tim on February 6, 2010 in Uncategorized. 8 Comments Tags: , .

The Open Government Directive, issued on December 8, 2009 stated:

1. Publish Government Information Online

[...]

e.  Within 60 days, each agency shall create an Open Government Webpage located at http://www.[agency].gov/open to serve as the gateway for agency activities related to the Open Government Directive and shall maintain and update that webpage in a timely fashion.

f.  Each Open Government Webpage shall incorporate a mechanism for the public to:

i. Give feedback on and assessment of the quality of published information;
ii. Provide input about which information to prioritize for publication; and
iii. Provide input on the agency’s Open Government Plan (see 3.a.).

That day is today!

Here are three sites that track which of the agency.gov/open pages are already live or have feedback options in place:

As was expected, most of these sites are using IdeaScale for input gathering and discussion. Some of you may remember this tool from phase 1 of the Open Government Dialogue (see here, here).

Below is a list of RSS feeds available from the various idea gathering and discussion forums (scroll down for link to the ultimate combo firehose feed):

1. Federal Communications Commission

  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/40005-open-how-can-the-fcc-improve-its-work-on-the-open/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37117-engagement-what-are-ways-in-which-the-fcc-can-bet/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37639-engagement-how-can-the-fcc-also-increase-engageme/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37637-engagement-what-technologies-and-practices-could-/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37643-engagement-how-can-the-fcc-better-facilitate-the-/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37175-engagement-how-should-the-fcc-improve-its-engagem/activity.atom
  • http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37118-engagement-in-what-ways-can-social-networks-furth/activity.atom
2. Social Security Administration
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777476/ideascale_7069.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777476/ideascale_comments_7069.xml
3. National Science Foundation
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777472/ideascale_7046.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777472/ideascale_comments_7046.xml
4. Department of Justice
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777454/ideascale_7036.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777454/ideascale_comments_7036.xml
5. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
No RSS feeds available. Feedback option via this contact form: http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777446/ideascale_7029.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777446/ideascale_comments_7029.xml
7. General Services Administration
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777469/ideascale_6960.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777469/ideascale_comments_6960.xml
8. Department of Defense
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777447/ideascale_7067.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777447/ideascale_comments_7067.xml
9. Department of Energy
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777450/ideascale_7031.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777450/ideascale_comments_7031.xml
10. Department of State
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777461/ideascale_7038.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777461/ideascale_comments_7038.xml
11. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
No RSS feed available. Feedback option via this online form: http://www1.eeoc.gov/open/feedback.cfm
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/811036/ideascale_7239.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/811036/ideascale_comments_7239.xml
No feedback option available besides generic “contact us” page.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777449/ideascale_7030.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777449/ideascale_comments_7030.xml
Opportunity to discuss their Open Government Plan on the blog: http://www.hhs.gov/open/plan/ourplan_1.html
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777467/ideascale_7042.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777467/ideascale_comments_7042.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777466/ideascale_7110.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777466/ideascale_comments_7110.xml
18. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777473/ideascale_7048.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777473/ideascale_comments_7048.xml
19. Securities and Exchange Commission
No feedback option available besides email address.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/779496/ideascale_7043.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/779496/ideascale_comments_7043.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777475/ideascale_7068.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777475/ideascale_comments_7068.xml
No feedback option available yet.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777462/ideascale_7039.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777462/ideascale_comments_7039.xml
24. Department of Labor
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777460/ideascale_7037.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777460/ideascale_comments_7037.xml
25. Department of Agriculture
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=Transparency
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=Participation
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=Collaboration
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=Innovation
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=Datasets
  • http://www.usda.gov/open/ideas.nsf/rss.xml?openagent&product=All%20Other
26. White House
No specific feedback options. A number of discussions have been held on the OSTP blog on behalf of the White House.
27. Federal Bureau of Investigation
No feedback option as of this writing.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777452/ideascale_7033.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777452/ideascale_comments_7033.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777453/ideascale_7034.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777453/ideascale_comments_7034.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777464/ideascale_7040.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777464/ideascale_comments_7040.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777465/ideascale_7041.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777465/ideascale_comments_7041.xml
32. Consumer Product Safety Commission
No feedback option as of this writing.
33. Federal Election Commission
No feedback option as of this writing.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777470/ideascale_7044.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777470/ideascale_comments_7044.xml
35. National Transportation Safety Board
No feedback option as of this writing.
36. Central Intelligence Agency
No feedback option as of this writing.
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777474/ideascale_7047.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/777474/ideascale_comments_7047.xml

38. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President

  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/803629/ideascale_7129.xml
  • http://www.ideascale.com//userimages/sub-1/803629/ideascale_comments_7129.xml
* * *
I’ve put together a combined RSS feed via Yahoo! Pipes: OGD Open Feedback Firehose
I’ll update the pipe as more forums go online.  Leave a comment if you do anything interesting with the feed.

Semi-Anonymous Comments on Peak Democracy

Published by Tim on February 4, 2010 in Research. 3 Comments Tags: , .

Following up on my recent post about Quora’s approach to anonymous postings, here’s an example of a related feature.

Peak Democracy is a “non-partisan company whose mission is to broaden civic engagement and build public trust in government.” Their Open City Hall™ service is a monitored online public comment process that promises “order and decorum of a government meeting” (see entry on ParticipateDB).

The City of Palo Alto uses the service to host discussions on various topics. Some comments are posted as “semi-anonymous”. Clicking the link opens a pop-up window with more information:

The pop-up reads:

Q: What are ’semi-anonymous’ statements and why do you allow them?

A: Statements whose authors are identified privately to Peak Democracy, but not publicly on the website are called ’semi-anonymous’. Per our privacy agreement, Peak Democracy does not identify the author of a semi-anonymous statement to anyone – not even to the government agency hosting the forum – unless we are required by law to do so.

We allow semi-anonymous statements because there are people with great ideas who will only share them anonymously. Some people cannot sign their statements because doing so will interfere with their job, business or other personal relationships.

At the same time, we have developed technology and procedures which safeguard against systematic abuse of this privacy feature.

As I mentioned before, allowing participants to “choose if and to what extent they want to share their real identity with the other participants or the general public” is a valuable feature for the exact reason given above.

Video from Future of the Forum: Epic Win

Published by Tim on February 4, 2010 in E-participation and Games and Play. 1 Comment Tags: , .

Jane McGonigal is a leading game designer and game researcher with an interest in public problem solving. I just learned about a new game she’s been working on and which I’ll write about shortly. As a preface to my upcoming post I wanted to briefly share this video of a talk she gave at the Future of the Forum symposium in Berkeley, CA last December (which I had the great pleasure to attend): “Epic Win – Games as a Forum for the Future”

I have a feeling that game design will play a key role in developing the next generation of e-participation solutions so it’s worth paying attention.

Upcoming Gov 2.0 and OpenGov Events

Published by Tim on February 1, 2010 in Events. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

There’s a flurry of conferences, unconferences and hybrids being planned that address Government 2.0 and Open Government, including — of course — the topic of participation. Here’s a list of events on our radar for the first half of 2010:

Please leave a comment in the likely case we missed anything.

Update:

Added the next Open Government Directive Workshop, February 17 in DC.

Update 2:

Added the Open Government & Innovations (OGI) Conference, May 4-5 in DC.