Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

stuart.mckee

User Profile Image stuart.mckee
Member since : May-25-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 4 Comments, 0 Votes

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted

stuart.mckee 9 months ago
rkh - if you want to assure the widest availability for 'independence', shouldn't we be using ASC and .TXT files? How about .HTM and/or .RTF? Why would you suggest PDF and ODF both of which were developed for and tied to specific companies’ products (Adobe and SUN respectively?)

Furthermore, if you were to suggest Government focus on the most ’widely’ used format, shouldn’t it be .DOC which is currently supported by nearly every word processor (including freeware) in existence today?

The answer is quite simple actually – Governments should use the tools are resources that most effectively meet their needs – which include openness and transparency. In the case of file formats, Governments use a wide variety of tools, and different formats are appropriate for different functions. Trying to leverage a single format sounds great, but inappropriately simplifies the need of Governments and citizens. In addition, it does not account for the fact what is *really* important is the application that implements the format. Formats are a specification, and it is the quality of the application that implements it that matters. By limiting to specific formats, you in effect will limit capability and functionality.

If limiting formats and choice is appropriate, how about other areas? For a very simplified example – in the case of image formats you might use .JPG and .TIFF - .JPG may be appropriate for lower resolution and smaller file sizes (posting the web), and .TIFF for higher resolution printing needs. It is difficult to imagine limiting Government image needs to one format.

To tie my thoughts together and why not .TXT, it is because the Government needs and uses functionality in *applications* - .TXT may be appropriate in many situations, but will not suffice when formatting, tables, and/or images are included.

Mandates and procurement preferences for specific technologies (which under the covers are intended to limit choice and benefit specific groups) are not appropriate. The expectations and standard for Governments to provide accessibility and wide availability of electronic services should be high and a multitude of solutions and innovations should continue to be at their disposal. More often than not Governments actually do acquire the tools and resources that most effectively meet their needs and provide the greatest value and availability for citizens.
stuart.mckee 9 months ago
Software is a tiny percentage of the 'cost' picture (but expectations for value should be high!) If you draw a pie chart of 'costs' which includes software, hardware, and support - software comprises a small piece of the pie. The 'create a preference' pitch is an ideological debate with little merit (on either side). For example, when you say 'open source software' do you mean how it is licensed, developed, or the business model that supports it?

'use freeware' is not an enterprise strategy. Software (and the contributions of the people that create it) does provide significant value and is an appropriate investement. There is far greater 'lock in' and cost for government with hardware and services, and I would argue that moving more of the 'investment pie' to software will actually *decrease* total cost, and *increase* outcomes.
stuart.mckee 9 months ago
Fredbaud,

I would like to clarify your post – you are correct the .doc format is nearly ubiquitous and the .doc format is arguably the most widely used format and is supported by nearly every word processor in existence today including Google Docs, IBM Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice and many others (some that are 'free' and some that require purchase).

However, you are correct, to take advantage of the rich feature set within Microsoft Office and support, security updates, and collaboration, you should use an appropriately licensed copy.

21stCenturyRTK -

A government preference for a particular business model does not seem appropriate (when you say 'open source' do you mean the business, licensing, or development model for software?). You do hit a fantastic goal of 'ensure that online government data are accessible to the widest possible audience' - why would you need a procurement preference to do so? Regardless of the goal, shouldn't government be able to set requirements and procure systems/software/solutions based on merit? Procurement and solution considerations should include the widest choice - and based on merit the best alternative should be used.

Furthermore, what about hardware? A far bigger challenge for access to government data lies in the proprietary architectures inherent in the legacy systems in place today. 'open formats' for hardware is an interesting discussion and perhaps 'open architectures' is the right conversation to achieve your goals. Software (of all kinds) is the solution to unlock this data.
stuart.mckee 10 months ago
Sean, although I agree 100% with the idea that 'trust' in voting system is critical. 'Open Source' does little (if anything) to provide real accountability for voting systems. The perception that somehow access to source code eliminates any capability for fraud is misleading and will not assure voters that the process is verifiably fair and impartial.

Three comments I would like to suggest to improve the discussion;

1. What about hardware and people running the systems? These are certainly areas of 'risk' to integrity every bit as important as software.

2. 'Auditing standards' should be set. Regardless of system, the capability to 'audit' performance and results is the best way to verify integrity. Certainly voting systems should be verified and perhaps 'certified' by an agency with appropriate skills to do so (and these 'certification agencies' may in fact have capability to review and 'audit' source code which is totally appropriate.) In addition, we should have a consistent method to validate the entire 'system' running 'in production' is the same as the certified system. Throughout an election, audits of system integrity should be conducted.

3. I believe in the discussion and concern for how technology might corrupt and/or create opportunities for fraud, we have completely missed the discussion about the shortcomings of our current processes, and how much technology can dramatically help increase trust in government and voting. For example, rather than bags of paper ballots transported in bins and mail systems, with many opportunities for human interference - encryption for transmission of results and digital tabulation. And rather than no opportunity for a truly 'private polling booth' - real access for disabled voters with readers, audio, etc. These are two examples of how technology can (and should) radically transform shortcomings in our current voting processes.

Thank you for the discussion!