Open-source beyond software

[monsterstack]

I realise this thread walks the line between what is and isn't acceptable threads for the Cafe, but a few political happenings lately makes me want to bring this up.

How far, do you think, is it possible for the philosophy of open source to spread to other areas? Obviously it has already spread to culture: creative commons, remixes and mashups and stuff. Also to how we get our information: wikipedia takes care of that for a great many people now, for better or worse.

Have a look at this article (http://eaves.ca/2009/05/14/vancouver-enters-the-age-of-the-open-city/) [eaves.ca]:


WHEREAS the City of Vancouver is committed to bringing the community into City Hall by engaging citizens, and soliciting their ideas, input and creative energy;

WHEREAS municipalities across Canada have an opportunity to dramatically lower their costs by collectively sharing and supporting software they use and create;

WHEREAS the total value of public data is maximized when provided for free or where necessary only a minimal cost of distribution;

WHEREAS when data is shared freely, citizens are enabled to use and re-purpose it to help create a more economically vibrant and environmentally sustainable city;

and so on;

It's from a motion put forward in the city of Vancouver. It'll be incredible if it is accepted. But you can see right there in the quote the ideals of open source have been co-opted for political change by these people.

What do people here think about the idea of open-source Government? Do you think the ideals of open-source can realistically dictate how big decisions get made? Personally, I think that having communities actively involved in decision-making processes is a brilliant idea, and might well solve a whole bunch of problems.

No drama please!

[penguindrive]

I realise this thread walks the line between what is and isn't acceptable threads for the Cafe, but a few political happenings lately makes me want to bring this up.

How far, do you think, is it possible for the philosophy of open source to spread to other areas? Obviously it has already spread to culture: creative commons, remixes and mashups and stuff. Also to how we get our information: wikipedia takes care of that for a great many people now, for better or worse.

Have a look at this article (http://eaves.ca/2009/05/14/vancouver-enters-the-age-of-the-open-city/) [eaves.ca]:



It's from a motion put forward in the city of Vancouver. It'll be incredible if it is accepted. But you can see right there in the quote the ideals of open source have been co-opted for political change by these people.

What do people here think about the idea of open-source Government? Do you think the ideals of open-source can realistically dictate how big decisions get made? Personally, I think that having communities actively involved in decision-making processes is a brilliant idea, and might well solve a whole bunch of problems.

No drama please!
I don't think the community should be PART of making decisions, it should be the decision maker, so if this can help go towards that, I am all for it.

[Tipped OuT]

The problem is though, this world is full of idiots. :(

There goes the economy, thank you Mr. George W. Bush! :D

[monsterstack]

The problem is though, this world is full of idiots. :(

There goes the economy, thank you Mr. George W. Bush! :D

No doubt. But in the world of open-source software, rubbish applications simply don't get used. They are either worked on a bit more, turned into other projects, or simply abandoned. Don't you think similar things could be done with real world decisions?

For instance, if a study finds that CCTV cameras are mostly useless except in a few areas, wouldn't it make sense to do away with using so many of them? I think if people went about making decisions such as that in a fluid-like, "try it and see" attitude, we could achieve an awful lot, very quickly.

[LuigiAntoniol]

Government and open source software don't seem to mix too well in South Africa either.

"Despite a national open source strategy and a well-publicised set of minimum interoperability standards for government, the South African education department has launched a teacher laptop project that excludes free and open source software (FOSS)."
http://www.tectonic.co.za/?p=4775

The government policy can be found here:
http://www.oss.gov.za/FOSS_OC_POLICY_2006.pdf

My wife is a teacher using a netbook running Linpus. Linpus has everything she needs for running reports and other teacher related stuff, like projects, etc..

My wife's mother, also a teacher in government, uses a notebook running ******* Vista and the only programs she's ever used are the MS Office programs, IE and Outlook. Don't tell me that even a (in my opinion) junky distro like Linpus can't match up to the M$ equivalents.

This is all quite mad.:lolflag:

[penguindrive]

No doubt. But in the world of open-source software, rubbish applications simply don't get used. They are either worked on a bit more, turned into other projects, or simply abandoned. Don't you think similar things could be done with real world decisions?

For instance, if a study finds that CCTV cameras are mostly useless except in a few areas, wouldn't it make sense to do away with using so many of them? I think if people went about making decisions such as that in a fluid-like, "try it and see" attitude, we could achieve an awful lot, very quickly.

I agree with this.

[lovinglinux]

The problem is that a Government cannot function if it needs the input from the society every time something needs to be decided. There are mechanisms for doing that when the subject demands this input or the society makes pressure. For instance, we had a plebiscite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) a few years ago, to decide if citizens should be allowed to use guns or not. The majority voted for yes, despite the incredible history of violence on major cities. Go figure.

There are also public hearings here to listen to the community on important matters, but I don't think it matters that much, specially when the corporate interests are in jeopardy. Corporations are too powerful, they finance huge lobby campaigns to push their agenda and finance Senators and Congressman campaigns to get something back later. I can't imagine the kind of dirt that is hidden behind the curtains.

Sharing data freely as suggested by the proposal is great, but will scare a lot of powerful people. Just look what's going around the world in regards to data sharing and Internet privacy. Sweden has already adopted laws to police the Internet and in my country there is already a bill that will do pretty much the same if approved.

Is personally lost my faith on Government a long time ago.

[etnlIcarus]

It's perhaps a little short-sighted to credit open-source with these ideas (at least wholly). Open-source development has borrowed heavily from the concepts of deliberative democracy and post-scarcity economics/civics and this is certainly reflected in this proposal.

Now, on those merits alone, I'd be all for something like this - except these ideas usually fall short in execution (oft deliberately). As much as there is the potential for something great to arise from this idea, there's at least an equal chance that this would devolve into something cynical, in the hands of the people who would actually manage it's implementation.

There have been somewhat similar initiatives started by the current Aust federal gov't (see: 2020 Summit) but these have really only been token, 'costs nothing; achieves nothing' measures to placate the lingering progressive politicians and constituents within the Labor party.

[monsterstack]

The problem is that a Government cannot function if it needs the input from the society every time something needs to be decided. There are mechanisms for doing that when the subject demands this input or the society makes pressure. For instance, we had a plebiscite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) a few years ago, to decide if citizens should be allowed to use guns or not. The majority voted for yes, despite the incredible history of violence on major cities. Go figure.

Sure, but then look at the gun crime figures for places such as Canada or Switzerland: places with just as much gun ownership as the US, but almost none of the crime that happens in America's poorest districts. This is an argument that can go on forever. But when it comes to personal liberty, people are possessive of it. That's the way it rolls: freedom has to be absolute to be worth a damn.


There are also public hearings here to listen to the community on important matters, but I don't think it matters that much, specially when the corporate interests are in jeopardy. Corporations are too powerful, they finance huge lobby campaigns to push their agenda and finance Senators and Congressman campaigns to get something back later. I can't imagine the kind of dirt that is hidden behind the curtains.

Lots and lots and lots of dirt. And that's precisely the reason we need openness and transparency in Government.


Sharing data freely as suggested by the proposal is great, but will scare a lot of powerful people. Just look what's going around the world in regards to data sharing and Internet privacy. Sweden has already adopted laws to police the Internet and in my country there is already a bill that will do pretty much the same if approved.

As far as sharing private personal information, then no: definitely not. Anyone who advocates that is a fool. But there are things that are relevant to everybody, such as how much money the municipality intends on spending on its schools, hospitals or other infrastructure, and how it plans to use it. These things affect everybody. And I think it's high time people took some involvement in what goes on in their communities. I can imagine civic pride and community spirit being pretty good if the people in a neighbourhood get to take part in what affects them. Look at how many communities get built up around open-source projects. We're best to judge: we're all part of the biggest one, after all. Most Linux contributors I know have some sort of pride for what they do. I see no reason why that same spirit can't be more prevalent in day-to-day activities.


Is personally lost my faith on Government a long time ago.

You and me both. Time for a change, I reckons.

[monsterstack]

It's perhaps a little short-sighted to credit open-source with these ideas (at least wholly). Open-source development has borrowed heavily from the concepts of deliberative democracy and post-scarcity economics/civics and this is certainly reflected in this proposal.

Yeah, I know. But I didn't want to push that angle too much lest the thread get too political and get shut down. :P


Now, on those merits alone, I'd be all for something like this - except these ideas usually fall short in execution (oft deliberately). As much as there is the potential for something great to arise from this idea, there's at least an equal chance that this would devolve into something cynical, in the hands of the people who would actually manage it's implementation.

Sure. There have been many Wikipedia scandals: cliques of truthkeepers and swarms of deletionists and people pushing their bias at every opportunity. But then compare that with what Wikipedia has achieved in just a few years. I know the analogy isn't very good: Real Life != Wikipedia. The point is that for all the ills of doing stuff this way, there are still some very positive benefits to be had. And after all: it's certainly worth a try. If it doesn't work, then fine, let's go back to being bossed about by the crooks we have now. I don't honestly think we could do any worse than they have managed.


There have been somewhat similar initiatives started by the current Aust federal gov't (see: 2020 Summit) but these have really only been token, 'costs nothing; achieves nothing' measures to placate the lingering progressive politicians and constituents within the Labor party.

Similar things happen in the UK, too. Well at least they used to. The Government has taken spin to a whole new level, here. They just state bare-faced lies.

I think if we really want things to change, we have to advocate total openness. Like you say, half-measures don't work. No one is fooled by Microsoft's "shared source" licence, for instance. Things are happening in the UK right now that simply cannot be placated by lousy half-measures. The people are just way too angry. The Government's solution is to have complete transparency from now on. Whether or not they'll actually follow through on this is anyone's guess. But they'd be idiots not to.

Let's please move away from outright political stuff, please. :)

[lovinglinux]

You and me both. Time for a change, I reckons.

I don't disagree with your ideas, I just don't believe it would work, at least here. Maybe they could work in Canada and Switzerland. Who knows?


BTW, I smell "Closed Thread".

[etnlIcarus]

Sure. There have been many Wikipedia scandals: cliques of truthkeepers and swarms of deletionists and people pushing their bias at every opportunity. But then compare that with what Wikipedia has achieved in just a few years. I know the analogy isn't very good: Real Life != Wikipedia.
I think Wikipedia is one of humanity's great success stories. It's hardly perfect but it's working a lot better than anyone could have predicted. Sadly, I think that success has as much to do with the kind of demographics the site attracts, rather than just the process and guidelines. You're right with that little disclaimer at the end.

[lovinglinux]

I think Wikipedia is one of humanity's great success stories. It's hardly perfect but it's working a lot better than anyone could have predicted. Sadly, I think that success has as much to do with the kind of demographics the site attracts, rather than just the process and guidelines. You're right with that little disclaimer at the end.

I agree. Wikipedia has it's flaws, but it's a great tool. Sometimes imagine how much more interesting would be to study today, on the same school I graduated on 89. There wasn't even Internet here in 89. That is just 20 years ago.

[Hyper Tails]

open source is key

[monsterstack]

I agree. Wikipedia has it's flaws, but it's a great tool. Sometimes imagine how much more interesting would be to study today, on the same school I graduated on 89. There wasn't even Internet here in 89. That is just 20 years ago.

I read it best in some book or other, but it went like this.

The year is 1999. An entrepreneur approaches you (you're a rich maybe-investor) with a proposal for making the biggest encyclopaedia ever made. Do you,


Hire a huge team of specialists, pay them big wages to look stuff up, religiously fact-check it, and have everything edited and sub-edited by competent publishers for an eventual publication a few years away;

or

Make an internet site with nothing on it that anybody can edit and see what happens.


The fact that Wikipedia even exists is some kind of madness that I just can't explain. It just defies logic. And it's brilliant, yes.