Personal Democracy Forum conference: initial themes

by Andy Oram | @praxagora | comments: 0

"So what's this conference you're going to?" asked my friends, not braced for an explanation that usually took me more than ten minutes. Ultimately, though, they all expressed excitement about the ideas driving Personal Democracy Forum.

These friends care about politics. They argue over all the issues, and at some level they take note of the processes that often matter more than any arguments. But although some know what an API was and a few even understood the concept of mash-ups, it's remarkable how completely they had been bypassed by the current movement toward open government, whose importance to the Obama administration was signaled by his release of a memorandum on transparency and open government on his first full day in office.

I hooked my friends through the idea of an irreversible political shift. Not a regulatory regime that could be dismantled like the agencies responsible for civil rights, or a mandate that could be defunded like federal housing initiatives--no, in this case a movement integrating the public into government functioning, and that therefore creates an external constituency that helps to perpetuate the system; an ecosystem of non-governmental organizations that will react precipitously and aggressively if the government tries to shut them out.

Digging for themes

PDF is appropriately held in New York City, a culturally open megalopolis that is ethnically and politically uncategorizeable. Free speech holds forth on the subways where the exhortations of the homeless prove that the great art of oratory is still alive.

A thousand people signed up for the conference (leading, of course, to more than a thousand Twitterers). At the gorgeous Jazz at Lincoln Center location, the Rose auditorium was totally filled, and the hallway was choked as attendees strove to reach pitifully undersized rooms for breakout sessions.

As a conference with a contemporary, tech-oriented bent, PDF ripples off into all kinds of online resources. At several points the keynotes were held against a real-time twitter feed, goading on the feeding frenzy by showing the accounts of the people who tweeted the most. This focus on immediate response--and on quantity of response--had a specific effect on the consciousness of the audience. The twitter feed reinforced through highlighting and repetition the most provocative sound bites and the statements most clearly relating to current issues at the top of attendees' minds

This is a useful function to play, but the provocative utterance and timely issue is only one superficial level of conference engagement. We all need to take away what we've experienced, sit with it a bit, and look for underlying themes that represent a significant trends that can guide us.

Give a few hours for reflection, I'll use this blog to synthesize three recurring themes I heard during the first day. I'm sure more ideas will settle out as I spend even more time thinking through these two days of meetings.

• The prerequisite: the power for change lies with the public
• The platform for democracy: infrastructure we all need
• Time to tune in: we can't tolerate static
• Miscellaneous insights from speakers and participants

The prerequisite: the power for change lies with the public

It's scary being a politician, let alone the an agency head. These people may seem indescribably powerful to the rest of us, but they live in fear of public pillory triggered by their own missteps.

Jeff Jarvis listed, as one of his four key elements of change, the ability for government to fail without risk of recrimination. David Weinberger approached the same theme from a different direction, talking about how all wisdom is provisional, emerging, and scattered. Vivek Kundra and Beth Noveck--who will be speaking tomorrow--have repeatedly made similar statements in the context of bringing the innovation culture of the Silicon Valley to the area around Foggy Bottom.

In my first ramp-up blog for PDF I talked about a four-part cycle for successful public/government collaboration. Perhaps we need to start the cycle earlier, or add some kind of parallel cycle, to recognize that the public has to make the commitment asked by Jarvis: the promise to show forbearance when the government fails and to grant it a mandate to do innovation.

The platform for democracy: infrastructure we all need

If one engages in some deep listening, you can hear beneath all the celebrations of transparency a recognition that success depends on several elements of infrastructure. Early experiments in open government may produce exemplary and even spectacular successes, but the culture won't take hold until this platform is in place.

Computing networking and computer technology are the most obvious requirement. Mark McKinnon, a Republican communications strategist, called for universal broadband during his keynote.

But as audience members pointed out, literacy is another requirement: basic literacy as well as media-savvy literacy and knowledge of the tools that let one participate.

Ethnologist dana boyd took the discussion to the next level by pointing out that even when people do go online and do use social media, they self-segregate by race, class, and educational status. Her case study for this claim was limited (the demographics of MySpace users versus Facebook users) but the statements she culled from young people showed that the digital divide is possibly even deeper online than these social divisions are offline.

I believe that a predilection for different forums and ways of interacting online doesn't have to prevent different races and classes from coming together on issues of common interest, such as health care. But boyd's point that people set up online barriers that make it harder for them communicate across these barriers is salient. She pointed out that we need to recognize that the sites we visit are not the same sites everyone visits, to spend time on the sites of people we want to influence or collaborate with, and to embrace different modes of interaction among different social groups.

Finally, open discussion requires a tolerant environment. Recent events in Iran, as well as the introduction of Internet filtering software in China, show that governments can choke off civil society online; the technology was described as a cat-and-mouse game where both the side of information dissemination and the side of repression learn how to increase their power.

Time to tune in: we can't tolerate static

The last theme I'll highlight from the first day is the sense that we can't stand still. Americans (and particularly young Americans) expect more and more that we can have a say, that we can move quickly and have choices, that we can contribute to decisions and their implementation. We've already seen how many businesses (not all, of course) that fail to keep pace with these expectations are shrinking. If governments don't meet the expectations, people won't be able to replace it the way they replace businesses, but there could be increased feelings of alienation and increased social dissatisfaction.

Miscellaneous insights from speakers and participants

ChallengePost announced today a site that brings together people with needs and problem-solvers, using a challenge model similar to the Netflix prize or the TopCoder software firm. In publishing a challenge, someone can offer money or just recruit people to offer thanks. Respondents may be motivated to solve the challenge by intangible rewards as well as money. ChallengePost offers advice on how formulate a good challenge and judge it expertly, but the form of each challenge is the prerogative of those who post it.

The Digital Literacy Contest tries to develop a generation of problem-solvers who can analyze the streams of government data coming online. They will run contests in high schools and colleges that start with test problems and then move to questions to which they do not have the answers. When several students converge on the same solution, it is published for the public benefit.

Morley Winograd of NDN briefly analyzed Ron Paul's failure in the presidential election despite his sophisticated use of social media. If I understood Winograd, the medium--which is well constituted for bringing groups together--contrasted too much with the message of individualistic libertarianism.

In a forum on participatory medicine, Esther Dyson said of the current health care debate, "We're focusing too much on health care and not enough on health, just as one might complain that the government focuses too much on laws and not enough on getting people to do good things." This was the start of a session that discussed ways patients and doctors could use information sharing to improve outcomes and lower costs.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called in over Skype instead of coming to the conference. Over his call he announced an expansion of the famous 311 service and various initiatives to accept public complaints and provide public data online. I was glad Skype was available for the call, but I find it odd for the government to be using commercial services (Kundra moving staff to Google Docs, YouTube hosting White House videos, agencies going on Facebook, etc.). I can see why the government wants to use available social media for convenience, and it provides a familiar access method for constituents. But eventually governments should develop their own public-domain software, tailored to government needs and open to all.

Blair Levin, who is designing a national broadband plan at the FCC, started out buttering up the audience by making fun of incumbent telephone companies, then gave us a "homework assignment" of reviewing and making improvements to its presentation at the the July 2nd FCC meeting, material for a set of staff workshops in August, and plans to be make in the Fall to do research. A panel following Levin's presentation--matching up a much-applauded representative from Free Press with representatives from the cable and telco industries--looked at the issue of speed. Is it fair to set a single target for speeds? Will the FCC define broadband to more closely match more advanced countries?

Personal Democracy Forum ramp-up: from vulnerability and overload to rage, mistrust, and fear

by Andy Oram | @praxagora | comments: 3

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 government participation cycle: if you want to dance, sir
• Vulnerability: a reason to put brakes on outgoing information
• Overload: a reason to put brakes on incoming information
• Rage, mistrust, and fear: inhibitors of the government participation cycle

The government participation cycle: if you want to dance, sir

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:

1. An agency (or less likely, a legislature) posts data in a downloadable format through a flexible API and announces a call for applications.
2. Companies and public interest groups define goals and put programmers on the task.
3. The public uses the resulting applications to generate data and share it with the agency.
4. The agency sets policy or changes direction in response to the data.

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.

Vulnerability: a reason to put brakes on outgoing information

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:

The right to respond

Anyone criticized in a forum has repeated chances to defend himself at length. If the forum includes a rating system, persuasive arguments and well-chosen facts will float above false accusations as well as flaccid excuses from the accused.

Support networks

Proponents of each side pile on to each debate, turning it into a community issue and diluting the personal biases brought by the people who began the debate. A bit of a mob scene can erupt at times, awakening the risk that the losing side will walk away in a huff while sensitive community members flee the fury. But as long as participants value the community over partisan agendas and prefer honesty to grandstanding, the community comes out stronger, more aware of its options, and ready to integrate what it has learned into further action.

Community memory

Forum members recognize when old debates are re-ignited, and can fill new members in on the history. They can also predict the way prominent participants will line up on an issue. Debates are thus tighter and more quickly resolved.

A propensity for truth

These traits all end up privileging accuracy and making it harder (although not impossible) for bad judgment to prevail through false claims, manipulative demagogy, appeals to group solidarity, and the other tricks used by insincere factionalists.

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.

Overload: a reason to put brakes on incoming information

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.

Rage, mistrust, and fear: inhibitors of the government participation cycle

Everyone knows that productive collaboration can't take place under conditions of rage, mistrust, or fear. Americans unfortunately are suffering from all these feelings right now.

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 (Friday, June 19): twenty-five hundred years of Government 2.0.