(Disclaimer:  I have previously stated that I work for the Ontario Government, and I would like to point out, once again, that the opinions that I express here are my own and do not by any means reflect the position or views of my employer.)

I found CivicAssess.ca via boingboingthis morning.  It looks like a very cool initiative.  They are encouraging municipal, provincial and federal governments to make information about operations open, public, and easy to get. 

Here's how they describe themselves:

"Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and Data (CivicAccess)is a group of citizens which believes all levels of government should make civic information and data accessible at no cost in open formats to their citizens. We believe this is necessary to allow citizens to fully participate in the democratic process of an "information society." "

I really like the idea of making government information available to citizens, and I totally agree that the availability of this information is vital to maintaining a healthy democracy.  However, I'm not sure how well they have thought this through. 

The amount of information that governments collect is so vast that we have a challenging time organizing that information internally, let alone organizing that information for public consumption.  Our intranets are a mess of inter-related documents that are unlinked and are very difficult to search.  The OPS are making huge strides in sharing information across ministries and external organizations, but we have a long way to go.  Knowledge management is definitely something we need to manage better internally. 

In the Ontario government is making a very strong effort to provide as much information and as many services as they can through it's amalgamated portal.  This type of IT initiative is in line with Civic Access goals.  (Although it may be a little simplistic comparing it to the objectives of the organizations.)  I also see various municipalities with varrying degress of engagement with there publics via their websites.  There is no doubt about it, we are way better served by our governments today than we were 10 years ago.

Command and Control

In public service we are dealing constantly with "stakeholders".  Ministries have an operational knowledge of how to do things and people on staff who are professionals researching and implementing government initiatives and projects.  We obviously consult with stakeholders as projects are being designed and implemented, and I honestly believe that those consultations are sincere and adequately thorough.

That said, there are times when a particular stakeholder's concerns hold up a project that would have great benefit for the rest of the stakeholders involved.  This is where the command and control culture of government is used for utilitarian good.  On the surface this may seem anti-democratic, but it is really a way of dealing with disparate groups with disparate interests that are not moving toward a resolution.

On Citizen Driven Projects

If you watch municipal governments in action (i.e. you actually watch city hall meetings on channel 13 or whatever) you will know that debate is often long, divergent and impassioned.  But I would hardly describe it as productive.

I personally love the idea of having citizens  work with each other on projects that have a direct impact on their community.  Using the energy and ideas of the citizens to get things done should be encouraged by all levels of government and government should do it's best to provide tools to help self organizing groups.

That said, I am really sceptical of the amount of work that would be accomplished by these initiatives.  When people are working on local projects the personalities involved eventually become the barrier to plans being finalized and descisions being made.  Politiks at the local level burn really hot, and this is bound to be a hurddle to overcome. 

Conclusions:

While I think that CivicAccess has a great message, I wonder what will come of it.  Will they work with the various levels of government to help identify information that should be made public?  I'll be watching the wiki to see how the tone of things develops, as I hope that it encourages an attitude of cooperation and open communication with governments instead of mistrust and scare mongering that people on the left tend to use when discribing our governments.

Over the past few days we've seen a bunch of people expressing interest in the Federal Liberal Leadership.   Some of the candidates are truely surprising both from a personal perspective as well as their position on the political spectrum.

Bob Rae was the first really big surprise.  I have a soft spot for Bob Rae as he's a friend of my step father's and one of the first really prolific left politicians.  Many blame him for deficits that the conservatives inherited, but his social policy was solid.  I think with a strong cabinet, Rae would be a great choice for a leader.  (Although he might be a hard sell to Liberals in general, as he is a little too far to the left for people to be comfortable.)

Gerrard Kennedy is another unlikely candidate.  Education has been a priority for the McGuinty government, so Kennedy has been in the news a fair amount in the past year.  From a policy perspective he would be another liberal favorite.  He has a great track record working with disparate groups and building consensus in difficult places.  But from a political point of view, he is kind of awkward.  He's not great while in the hot seat, and it might take a few years to get him up to the standard of public speaking that is required of a leader. 

Stephane Dion has more federal experience than the others, but is a little awkward as well.  I caught a bit of his press conference this morning, and while the speech was good, he totally read it.  Again, media training might fix this but I think that a leader of the Liberal Party should already be a little more cultivated. 

There are others of course that have expressed interest in the parties leadersip, but they are city councillors and such.  Without a huge political network to get financing, making those bids come to anything will be a monumental task.

So to conclude, the contenders so far seem to be a little further left than in the past, they seem to be a little less polished, and they seem to lack the federal political network that is needed to make it happen.

The next few months will be interesting for sure. 

I've been playing around with a piece of software called Tinderbox.  Tinderbox is simply amazing.  It allows you to mind map, outline, rearrange ideas and present information visually.  It is software that I have been waiting for my entire life.  It thinks like I do.

So once my interest was peaked by playing around with it for a while, I googled around the Eastgate site and found Mark Berstein's blog.  I was struck by his diversity of interest, his socially minded projects, and emphasis on making peoples lives better.  (And not just with software.)

Over my life I have met a few people that have really inspired me.  Looking back at these people they tend to have a few things in common:

• Varied interests.  From science to art to building stuff.
• Project Oriented.  They get an idea and follow it through.
• Community minded. 
• Passionate about their area of expertise.
• At peace with what they do.

Mark seems to be one of those people.  I was so impressed with his article on writing for the Living Web, an excellent primer for young bloggers like myself.  I like his focus on continuing development, which is kind of a theme in my life.  You should also take a look at his lecture notes which looks mostly at software aesthetics. 

Very cool guy.  I'm sure that I will have more to write about Mark and Tinderbox as I get into it.

I came across FreeCulture.org today and wanted to write a few thoughts about "the Movement".  Check out their manifesto here. 

From a philosophical stand point I agree whole heartedly.  Record companies and movie studios should not limit the chances for aspiring artists to publish.  Hardware should not enable companies to charge us over and over again to use data that we own.  Copyright must be changed soon.

However, we are in the midst of a big shift in the way we do things on the net at the moment.  Social media are changing the way that we produce and distribute content, and the law, business models and mainstream beliefs are catching up to this shift.  People on the left love to talk about the "democratization" that is being caused by the net, and again I totally agree and share their enthusiasm.

But we live in a huge system.  An economic system, a political system, a natural system.  Big shifts in perspective take time to cultivate and new law and business models need to be discussed and developed to make the big shift that the Free Culture manifesto calls for.  Some businesses are getting it, some laws are changing to reflect the new technological democracy.  Other companies are introducing draconian measures to curtail the "user" and some government are creating law that will set us back years.

To change hearts and minds of the people on the other side though, is a really different matter.  If you worked for a company in a very mature market and that has established suppliers, effective and profitable distribution channels and strong relationships with industry partners, would you be all psyched to go out and change all that based on the fad of the day?  I'm playing devils advocate here, but these companies have a great deal at stake.

I have faith that the market will sort this out.  One or two of the big companies will get it, and will make a pile of money getting it.  Once there are a few good examples of ethical business models that will make money, other markets will follow. 

What really scares me is the law makers; these people that we entrust to turn our values and beliefs into laws and legislation that actually reflect the will of the people.  These people deal in stakeholders.  They listen to the most vocal lobbyists/ activists/ interested group and make decisions for the greater good.  The problem is that "the greater good" today, will not reflect the greater good tomorrow.  As our boomer predecessors move into retirement homes, things will change.  Attitudes will change.  And we will have to change the law, again.

I am so thoroughly convinced that as gen x/y/z come of age, the real information democracy will be called for, demanded even.  You can hear it already. 

In the end I want my kids to live a world that values content more than money.  I want them to be able to participate and create stuff without breaking any laws.  I'm scared and excited at the same time.