#gov2

Open Renderments – Check it the Portal out!!

Open Renderments (OpenRend) http://renderments.org

Brought to you by Chronolabs Cooperative

Synopses:-

Open Renderments is a typal of ‘government’ that is from a point of history to unfathomable ahead of to now too/for refresh now!

Unfortunately most people don’t face realism an Open Government is a has-been and not possible, the word govern and meant is a double verb which is a closed system of…

Unfortunately most people don't face realism an Open Government is a has-been and not possible, the word govern and meant is a double verb which is a closed system of language, there is no ability to leave it open; unlike a much better word that is not nonsense which is - Renderments.

Open Renderments the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration from a-far to now: Renderments is necessary to the existence of ultra-modern civilized society.

Last week, I had an op-ed in the New York Times. The unfortunate headline (one that the Times came up with, but I consented to in a rush to get the op-ed out) was Why The Government Never Gets Tech Right. While I do agree that government rarely gets tech right, never is a dangerous word to use here, first because it's not true, and second because when government gets tech right, it's instructive and it's a bad idea to ignore where the success is for the sake of a clickable headline. Especially for the guy who wrote this book.

Healthcare.gov is instructive in a lot of ways because it highlights the failure of so many of our oversight, risk mitigation, and development systems. It's a project that draws attention to the fact that the systems that we use to buy and build technology are undeniably broken. But they're not universally broken. So I'd like to spend this week talking about where success is, and how those models can be replicated.

When those of us that work closely with government think about IT success, there's no greater technology success story than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It's an agency with an entire budget that's within the same ballpark as the cost of some larger IT projects, and they've built a reputation for being the best team in the league.

Last week they released their eRegulations tool, a way to browse through the CFPB's regulations. And you can see it in CFPB's Github repository. Now granted, this is no Healthcare.gov, but let's compare this to, say, the way that you browse the federal acquisition regulation. Or the whole corpus of US Federal Regulations. What a difference while the language of the CFPB's regulations are somewhat unavoidably bad (because lawyers write them, not people interested in clear and effective communication), certainly CFPB's technology and design initiatives have put an emphasis on making their regulations as accessible as their lawyers' cultural speech impediment will allow.

Just as a broken Healthcare.gov is a symptom of a larger problem, CFPB's well designed regulation browser is indicative of a strong and successful model for developing technology internally. Unlike many other agencies, CFPB brought much of its technology brains inside. Initially under the leadership of now Senator Elizabeth Warren, she brought in Eugene Huang and Merici Vinton[1]. I spoke with Huang and Vinton in the early days of CFPB and it was clear they wanted to build a different kind of agency, one with technical brains and acumen on the inside from the start.

That notion paid off. CFPB made key hires, and built a design and technology leadership organization on the inside. Now, when they want to build simple tools like the regulations browser, they can. And when they need to contract with an external entity to do things larger than their internal team is capable of, they know how to do it, and whom to select.

This isn't something that could really happen out of the blue at an agency like the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Department of Defense though. CFPB started from scratch, as a high-priority effort from the president. They got to invent their own culture and their own status-quo, that's not something that even a new Secretary of Defense gets to do. There were no entrenched vendors, entrenched processes, or entrenched culture inside of CFPB.

But now that CFPB has done it, it can be used as a model of success for other agencies. If there's a lesson to take away from Healthcare.gov, it's that while procurement reform is important, you also need people on the inside who know what they're doing.

At the recent Singapore Govcamp, Professor Ashish Lall brought up the need to abolish anonymity from the internet.

I appreciated his point of view, authentication of identity has always been a bugbear for communications and tech professionals alike. Like Professor Lall, I'm also a proponent of open communication, but I see the need for anonymity on the web despite its warts and all.

I tweeted my immediate response at Govcamp, "Anonymity will remain necessary as long as there is unfair (real or perceived) repercussions to free speech."

In an ideal world, where one can speak freely without fear of unfair repercussion, openness ought to thrive. We should not hide behind masks or alternate personas for nefarious motives, or make hurtful or insidious comments without bearing the responsibility of having made that comment in our own name. There should be a direct correlation between words that are uttered and the person who uttered them.

But many of us live in a less than ideal world. In some areas those who wield power do not take well to criticism, and brandish a heavy rod upon those who speak up against them. The options available to people in those places are submissive silence or anonymous speech.

That option should remain open.

But let's not leave this discussion at this point of doom and gloom. For a great number of us live in societies that are generally accepting of open speech, but live in submissive silence or speak anonymously due to fear. There will always be this dissonance; we will always scrutinise those in power, and to varying degrees judge their reactions to criticism as apathetic, appropriate or alarming.

To move towards the ideal environment that allows for open identities and speech, we need both sides - speaker and listener - to be fair.

For speakers:

Keep speech constructive. Identify issues, recognise the tradeoffs, explore and suggest solutions where possible.

Speak as a collective. Offer the initial benefit of doubt to those in positions to effect change. The most effective change-makers are leaders. They need not be official in positions of power, but are able to gather people together to solve problems. Tone of voice is important here.

Be patient. We live in a complex world where there is an overload of information. Change might take time, but keep looking for signs of change. Be encouraged, however small those signs are.

But be creative. Look at innovative ways and angles to solve the problem. Set a threshold for persistently trying out a single approach. When the threshold is reached and the approach exhausted, try a different one.

For listeners, particular those in positions to effect change:

Listen. Give speakers time and space to voice things out. Be flexible and thick-skinned enough to overlook emotive responses, and insightful enough to draw actionable items from them. Wait for your turn to speak.

Educate as a collective. When you do respond, do not dumb it down. Speakers who are passionate enough to speak up are your greatest assets. Empower them. Arm them with facts. Allow them access into the dilemmas you face, that they might emphatise with the decisions that need to be made. They'll come out of the exchange stronger activists and some maybe even advocates. You'll come out of it wiser, trust me. You'll realise you don't know everything, and that's very important given the power you wield.

Respond in a timely manner. While it is reasonable to expect some level of patience, this once common virtue has grown exceedingly scarce in the internet age. Provide cues that views are being heard, and wheels are in motion. Learn from user interfaces: progress bars, spinning hourglasses are all there to provide reassurance.

Take responsibility if you are in that position to effect change. Don't pass the buck. Stay in the conversation, be part of the collective gathered to tackle the problem. Communicate authentically, human being to human being. Don't hide behind organisations, acronyms, jargon, press releases or paperwork.

"Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." - V for Vendetta.