Illuminated Federal Budget

A call for ideas in eight short acts

PDF Mindmaps: Act One Act Two Act Three Act Four Act Five Act Six Act Seven Act Eight

• 1.BUDGETS Online
• 1.1.Budget Text
• 1.1.1.BREAK DOWN giant document
• 1.1.1.1.Leverage many readers
• 1.1.1.2.Open Source /wiki model
• 1.1.2.SPONSORS of entries
• 1.1.2.1.Contributions paid to Sponsors that might have affected the bill
• 1.1.2.2.KILLING a bill by Anonymous tagging / political maneuvers
• 1.1.2.2.1.Bloggers did the research to de-anonymize
• 1.1.2.2.2.A need for accountability
• 1.2.Financing
• 1.2.1.MEDIA coverage
• 1.2.1.1.Gun Control
• 1.2.1.2.War
• 1.2.1.3.Financing is covered as a single issue like the others
• 1.2.1.4.Finance suffuses all other issues and is not a separate issue
• 1.2.2.TECHNOLOGY enabling citizens to find information
• 1.2.2.1.Names of financial contributors
• 1.2.2.2.Still nobody CONNECTING the dots
• 1.2.2.3.Need A "dashboard" of RELATIONSHIPS
• 2.BILLS and LEGISLATION
• 2.1.COMMENTARY
• 2.1.1.Individual
• 2.1.2.Corporate
• 2.1.3.Identify DUPLICATES
• 2.1.3.1.Merge
• 2.1.3.2.Respond once
• 2.1.4.VALIDATE authority and facts
• 2.1.4.1.Some organizations or individuals are more studious than others
• 2.1.4.2.Some are WELL FUNDED with good research and references, easy to validate
• 2.1.4.3.Some are NOT EXPERTS so need closer look at claims
• 2.1.4.4.Some individuals are EXPERTS and will cite affiliations / experience making it easy to validate
• 2.1.4.5.The CONCERNED PUBLIC will provide claims that are easier to validate, or not in need of validation.
• 2.1.4.6.CRANKS can APPEAR to be experts but are not, and can be hard to disambiguate.
• 2.1.4.6.1.Accumulated EXPERIENCE will uncover them
• 2.1.4.6.2.EXPERTS tend to know each other by contact through conferences and mutual visibility and these folks can disambiguate
• 2.1.4.6.3.The ACADEMIC network can help identify them.
• 2.1.4.7.No FORMAL LIST of experts to validate authority
• 2.1.4.7.1.Can be politically difficult to have a list
• 2.1.4.7.2.REVIEW process difficult...
• 2.1.4.7.2.1.Still need list of experts to make list of experts...
• 2.1.4.7.2.2.Slow down the overall process
• 2.1.4.7.3.META commentary to on comments
• 2.1.4.7.3.1.Meta comments outside expertise still need VALIDATION
• 2.1.4.7.3.1.1.e.g chemistry; hard to validate authority of comments outside of local working knowledge.
• 2.1.4.7.3.2.Meta-commentors can work out a consensus?
• 2.1.4.7.3.2.1.Need credentials or reputation still to give weight to it
• 2.1.4.7.4.Over time, with PERSISTENT IDENTITIES, people will learn from experience who is an authority
• 2.1.4.7.5.MODERATION to keep it civil
• 2.1.4.7.5.1.Official moderators
• 2.1.4.7.5.2.Users self-moderating (community policing)
• 2.2.TOOLS to automate commentary
• 2.2.1.WHO is doing this kind of thing? Anyone? Bueller?
• 2.2.2.Is there a DESIRE/NEED for tools to make commentary easier?
• 2.2.2.1.Not about legislators about REGULATORs
• 2.2.2.1.1.Public Advisory committee
• 2.2.2.2.Comments must be allowed and responded to
• 2.2.2.3.Definite RULES about how comments
• 2.2.2.4.On the state/city level there is in fact a need and desire (poor overworked staffers)
• 2.2.3.Need to understand HOW the tools can/will be used
• 2.2.3.1.By overworked staff
• 2.2.3.2.Lobbyist is there to help the staff; so their work the staff takes credit
• 2.2.3.2.1.Biased advocates
• 2.2.3.2.2.Not so much balanced commentary
• 2.2.3.3.Staff is NOT becoming expert; getting it from outside
• 2.2.3.4.Tools can allow the staffers do their own job
• 2.2.3.5.Will also help lobbyists, same reason easy access to knowledge.
• 2.2.3.6.Only reason to have tools is to CHANGE the process as we have it now.
• 2.2.4.A lot of debate occurs at the LAST SECOND
• 2.2.4.1.Post-facto exposure but can it help realtime?
• 2.2.4.2.Tools can expose the timing of the discussion.
• 3.CONSENSUS on FACTS
• 3.1.Some disagree on principle
• 3.2.Some people simply think the facts are distorted
• 3.2.1.Known advocacy so assume disagreement and look for/invent a problem
• 3.2.2.Cherry picking data
• 3.2.2.1.Fix by using non-partisan facts and sources
• 3.2.2.2.External advocates
• 3.2.2.3.Arguments still occur but they are visible
• 3.2.3.FORUM for information instead of static reports
• 3.2.3.1.visible discussion
• 3.2.3.2.DATA plus COMMENTARY
• 3.2.3.3.Wikipedia? yes and no.
• 3.2.3.3.1.Not just developing facts describing argument and intent
• 3.2.3.3.2.Make the argument front-page visible not hidden behind
• 3.2.3.3.2.1.The goal isn't a conclusion but to make the argument clear. Different than driving to a conclusion.
• 3.2.3.3.2.2.We don't normally get to see the arguments that led too the result
• 3.2.3.4.Arguments made directly by the arguer, and not a possible misrepresentation by a third party.
• 3.2.4.May not get people to agree but may disagree for good reasons
• 3.2.4.1.Consensus (consensus wiki)
• 3.2.4.1.1.Is it really driving to consensus? More it is a display of varying arguments.
• 3.2.4.1.2.Another look; C for "common ground" where you find common base-line agreement even if they have different ultimate results/goals.
• 3.2.4.1.3.Respect and value the dialectic itself;
• 3.2.4.1.4.Once the base argument has been made, new people can jump in and refine, or note the common ground, using a new viewpoint
• 3.2.4.1.5.With argument in play, an outsider can note the fallacies, perhaps.
• 3.2.4.1.6.See also: BALLOT INITIATIVES
• 3.2.4.1.6.1.common goal already in place
• 3.2.4.1.6.2.Looking for basic consensus on common LANGUAGE for it
• 3.2.4.1.6.3.Detail organization
• 3.2.4.1.6.4.Specific language to meet various group concerns
• 3.2.4.2.Not ONE consensus, but perhaps a "true" statement of differing and incompatible viewpoints (agree to disagree)
• 3.2.4.2.1.Reference info (basic statement)
• 3.2.4.2.2.90% agreement
• 3.2.4.2.3.10% disagreement
• 3.2.4.2.4.valid statements of opposing viewpoints (multiple consensus)
• 3.2.4.3.Transpartisan! Partisan, but across multiple viewpoints
• 3.2.4.4.Not be accused of distorting facts because various viewpoints well represented
• 3.2.5.need a TOOL
• 3.2.5.1.Doesn't exist -- consensus wiki
• 3.2.5.2.Might be hard, but it can be done
• 4.CORPORATE AUTHORS in social media
• 4.1.Employee posting PERSONAL OPINION that conflicts with corp stance
• 4.1.1.Known to be part of corp
• 4.1.2.MIXED MESSAGE about corp positions
• 4.1.3.Generates confusion, e-mails
• 4.1.4.Need to formalize an individual's PERSONA of posting
• 4.1.4.1.Private opinion
• 4.1.4.2.corporate mouthpiece
• 4.1.4.3.internal expert
• 4.1.4.4.One person may be part of several groups
• 4.1.4.5.How to differentiate which aspect of their association they are representing
• 4.2.Need way for corp to present OFFICIAL POSITION
• 4.2.1.Corp account on social networks and post under that?
• 4.2.1.1.TOS of many forums requires you to be a real person
• 4.2.1.1.1.e.g. a valid birthday
• 4.2.1.1.2.Not allowed to lie
• 4.2.1.1.3.Can fake it, but how risk averse is the corp?
• 4.2.1.1.4.In some technical views a corp IS a person (start date = birthday?)
• 4.2.1.1.5.Friendster killed the corp accounts which may have promoted myspace
• 4.2.1.2.Need both Corp official stance AND individual employee's position
• 4.2.1.3.Legal issues with communications
• 4.2.1.3.1.Who can say what when
• 4.2.1.3.2.Who has authority to officially represent the corp
• 4.2.1.3.3.Some conflicts of interest limit even what individuals can say privately
• 4.2.2.Need to approach social systems and work with them about the corp needs
• 4.2.3.Need to express official vs. personal opinions and relationships between them
• 4.2.4.Z-Corp as an ACTOR; a FIRST-CLASS citizen of a network
• 4.2.4.1.Special registration to avoid spoofing
• 4.2.4.2.Ordinary account, just not a human account
• 4.2.4.3.Designate official agents who are also actors, and humans
• 4.2.4.3.1.Add
• 4.2.4.3.2.Remove
• 4.2.4.3.3.Validate who a person is, and the role they take
• 4.2.4.3.4.Regulation and Rules Code of behavior
• 4.2.4.3.5.Official roles
• 4.2.4.3.5.1.Marketing
• 4.2.4.3.5.2.Accounting
• 4.2.4.3.5.3.Technical
• 4.2.4.3.6.Legal review
• 4.2.4.3.7.PR review
• 4.2.4.3.8.Some organizations ALREADY HAVE official representatives in the social space
• 4.2.4.3.8.1.Needs rules to define their behavior and role
• 4.2.4.3.8.2.Can be frustrating, complicated
• 4.2.4.3.8.3.IBM requires a 3-day course on behavior before can present to the public
• 4.2.4.4.INTERNAL rules of behavior not imposed by the social network the corps will want control over this individually.
• 4.2.4.5.Rules and standards of behavior, and official viewpoint; CHANGES over time.
• 5.REPUTATION
• 5.1.Getting distributed people to work together.
• 5.1.1.Not in one room, but distributed around; hard to hash it out.
• 5.1.1.1.One person writes
• 5.1.1.2.Much re-writing
• 5.1.1.3.No central editor!
• 5.1.1.3.1.Who would edit? All must be on equal footing.
• 5.1.1.3.2.3rd party pro editor?
• 5.1.1.3.2.1.Expensive?
• 5.1.1.3.2.2.Wouldn't know the subtleties
• 5.1.1.3.2.3.Not just editing, but understanding
• 5.1.1.4.Can't even establish basic facts
• 5.1.1.4.1.Isn't establishing facts easy?
• 5.1.1.4.1.1.No; not just scientists in the process, but laypeople
• 5.1.1.4.1.2.hard to establish the authority of references
• 5.1.1.4.2.Existing databases?
• 5.1.1.4.2.1.Yes, but not easy to access; rare, expensive
• 5.1.1.4.2.2.Hard to get reliability data about an unknown reference
• 5.1.1.4.3.Need some kind of reputation information, to qualify authorities,
• 5.1.1.4.3.1.More than reputation at stake; not just that is sufficient
• 5.1.1.5.No way to track issues
• 5.1.1.5.1.New issues keep getting created by text changes. MOVING TARGET
• 5.1.1.5.2.Some groups move faster, because of their structure / focus
• 5.1.1.5.3.Old issues can blow up again
• 5.1.1.5.4.No way to tell how much work is left
• 5.1.1.6.Hard to tell who cares about what to be included in the discussion
• 5.1.1.6.1.Not all points are "issues" to all contributors
• 5.1.1.6.2.hard to know WHO to argue with about it; who cares, who to educate or convince.
• 5.1.1.6.3.Likewise, hard for individuals to know where to go where their hot issues are being worked on
• 5.1.1.6.4.One subgroup can hold up the rest arguing
• 5.1.2.In meetings, not always the best idea dominates; often it is charisma, other aspects of character
• 5.1.2.1.Offline communication can smooth over this dynamic influence.
• 5.1.2.2.Tools can allow the slow or shy thinkers to contribute as well
• 5.1.2.2.1.Need a mechanism to let ALL members of the issue to be heard and acknowledged
• 5.1.2.2.2.Need to categorize input
• 5.1.2.2.2.1.Science-based
• 5.1.2.2.2.2.Statistics
• 5.1.2.2.2.3.Referencable
• 5.1.2.2.2.4.Emotional biases
• 5.1.3.Case Study: Comments on stem cell research.
• 5.1.3.1.Education; For some issues, people just DON'T KNOW
• 5.1.3.2.Some issues are very emotional
• 5.1.3.2.1.Researchers disguise some research not as human but as plant/animal
• 5.1.3.3.Different types of authority with different influence
• 5.1.3.4.Appeal to higher authority, not to logic.
• 5.1.3.5.People can't necessarily express their opinions publicly; being supressed
• 5.1.4.TOOL problems
• 5.1.4.1.Specific needs, hard to customize current closed tools
• 5.1.4.2.Expensive!
• 5.1.4.3.Not existing even...
• 5.1.4.4.Using writing tools to NEGOTIATE... misuse of tool; no proper tool on hand to help
• 5.1.4.5.Tools will NOT solve decision-making problems or create consensus.
• 5.1.4.5.1.Decisions are often emotionally driven, not based in logic
• 5.1.4.5.2.Tool can increase the logic in a discussion, but it can't move it away from emotion
• 5.1.4.5.2.1.Provide visibility to why you thinking the way you are
• 5.1.4.5.2.2.Highlight values as well as facts
• 5.1.4.5.2.3.A meta-understanding of the decision PROCESS
• 5.1.4.5.3.Provides access to the information for those willing to use it
• 5.1.4.5.4.Can help filter and reduce the clutter so you can find the relevant arguments for your own interest
• 5.1.4.5.5.Can be illuminating to see the argument process between the groups as they seek consensus.
• 5.1.4.5.6.Not just a TOOL, but a COMMUNITY makes a system work. The tool empowers the behavior, but it must be used in context of the right people.
• 5.1.4.6.Not "one" tool -- but many.
• 5.1.4.7.Multidimensional problems don't work with a consensus model, but may work with a market model.
• 5.1.4.8.One need is a tool where you can create and access organizational/position papers
• 6.ATTRIBUTION
• 6.1.Using data without assigning credit
• 6.1.1.Sure, the data source had citations that lead back to the org. Just not used.
• 6.1.2.How to get credit for work done? Want to put out data, but also need users of it to be accountable.
• 6.1.3.Sponsors (funding sources) of work will be unhappy about mis-assigned credit.
• 6.1.4.Alternative COULD be for everyone to put out their own individual reports and stop providing source data for other reports.
• 6.1.4.1.Too much noise
• 6.1.4.2.Someone will aggregate anyway and Nobody gets credit in the end
• 6.1.5.What if the report links back to the source material? Or if not directly credited, if it's easy to FIND the source data.
• 6.1.5.1.Too much citation back-link gets ugly and cluttered
• 6.1.5.2.Hard to get everyone on the same format
• 6.1.5.3.Independent search is iffy... and cluttered
• 6.1.6.What about, Collaborative document, where one group just adds to a continuing larger discussion (wiki)?
• 6.1.6.1.Still need to work up consensus
• 6.1.6.2.Endless citations/summaries can loop and fill up the discussion with noise.
• 6.1.6.3.Still need a format to show source of funding To show credit
• 6.1.6.4.One working model of summary and citation of work, is to be found in scientific documents.
• 6.1.6.4.1.Constrained format
• 6.1.6.4.2.Predefined method of citation
• 6.1.6.4.3.Existing and well exercised
• 6.1.6.4.4.Public policy is a bit different from scientific discourse.
• 6.1.6.4.5.Some papers are targeted at a very broad, lightweight readership; not scientific at all (public use documents)
• 6.1.6.5.Another model are blogs and trackback on the web.
• 6.1.7.Credit for work can be illustrated and documented in annual reports and other communication directly with sponsors.
• 6.1.7.1.The source problem is still, giving proper credit for data used in analysis.
• 6.1.7.2.Not necessarily a problem of ethical behavior but of tools and mechanisms to make it easy?
• 6.1.8.Some organizations do not have a press group, to get exposure in the media. These groups could interface with media and get quoted if...we have ...
• 6.1.8.1.Contact information/ expert lists
• 6.1.8.2.Citations can lead reporters to experts
• 6.1.8.3.Another use for citation is to find a list of who shares an opinion? Who has said what?
• 7.INFORMATION DISPLAY
• 7.1.Or; Dang! That's an Ugly UI
• 7.1.1.The information is there but hard to understand
• 7.1.2.hard to track changes over time
• 7.1.3.hard to tell who did what (it's there but hard to find) Hidden features!
• 7.1.3.1.Sponsor... who put in the change?
• 7.1.3.2.Committee... where it happened? Same as sponsor?
• 7.1.3.3.Debate... relevant debate
• 7.1.3.4.Pressure...lobby groups (advocates!)
• 7.1.4.How to comment? Push the button!
• 7.1.4.1.Like a blog; familiar, and still sucks?
• 7.1.5.Viewing comments
• 7.1.5.1.Long bills... forum-style comments can be huge
• 7.1.5.2.Mouseover popups?
• 7.1.5.2.1.Too many and it gets cluttered...
• 7.1.5.2.2.Not heirarichical --- comments on comments?
• 7.1.5.3.Filtering and custom views of comments by varying criteria
• 7.1.5.3.1.Find relevant comments e.g. by one organization
• 7.1.6.Ease of use versus advanced capability
• 7.1.6.1.Casual users for broad reach
• 7.1.6.2.Advanced abilities for passionate, motivated users
• 7.1.6.3.Ultimately Need both
• 7.1.7.Is this even a necessary problem for us to address?
• 7.1.7.1.A good and valid problem
• 7.1.7.2.Poor use of our immediate time?
• 7.1.7.3.Solve it later...
• 7.1.7.4.Find experts to do this FOR us
• 8.REACHING an AUDIENCE
• 8.1.Need to send an e-mail but hard to format the data so it's complete AND clear.
• 8.1.1.Giant PDF is a hassle
• 8.1.2.Reference to Thomas is cluttered and hard to navigate
• 8.1.3.Copy-paste to web loses context
• 8.1.4.Be nice to have the source info broken up into SMALL CHUNKS
• 8.1.4.1.Legislation is already numbered and indexed (like the bible)
• 8.1.4.1.1.The numbering changes over time
• 8.1.4.1.1.1.Impose an external reference structure on it and work from that, to buffer the expected changes
• 8.1.4.1.2.Inherent cross-referencing already in a bill, which can be hard to follow.
• 8.1.4.1.3.Leg. is not meant to be read as narrative text, but is in legalese
• 8.1.4.2.Have bill text intermixed with commentary
• 8.1.4.2.1.Talmud and ref. bibles have commentary along with the text
• 8.1.4.2.2.Tracking a bill through it's entire lifecycle? Or just pick it up once it settles down at some relevant level?
• 8.1.4.2.2.1.It becomes important when earmarks are attached
• 8.1.4.2.2.2.Reduce complexity by reducing the scope of attention
• 8.1.4.3.Follow the links backwards, to see the various issues a group has commented on
• 8.2.Quoting OTHER organizations is similarly hard
• 8.2.1.Organizations have a desire to keep traffic internal and won't want to let users leave their site
• 8.2.2.Allow orgs to keep a custom wrapper around all access to the common data
• 8.2.3.Each org has their own unique format and language and website
• 8.2.3.1.Need to be able to customize content presentation to fit in with varying needs
• 8.2.3.2.Need live support so that when sites change and links break, that someone fixes it in a timely manner
• 8.3.no good tools yet for this though PIECES exist
• 8.3.1.Databases, of course
• 8.3.2.Tools for Linking information in the databases
• 8.3.3.Currently hard to know when you are done searching (have covered all relative information/links)
• 8.3.3.1.If the fragmented, indexed, annotatable bill is known to be online, people will use it
• 8.3.3.2.All relevant info will eventually be in one place
• 8.3.3.3.Able to tie into individual sites, with custom formatting/filtering.
• 8.3.4.Interface to show the pieces and comments and links
• 8.3.4.1.can't make all decisions about UI now but can set commitments to usability and accessibility now.
• 8.3.4.2.Need to architect for change; so we can adjust the interface over time and not lose data behind it.
• 8.3.4.3.May ONLY be POWER USERS; people who want their existing access to be BETTER; but not targeting the casual user.
• 8.3.4.3.1.Ordinary users may not want to read the budget
• 8.3.4.3.2.External users may only want to read the interpretation or annotation of the budget
• 8.3.4.3.3.However, we may be underestimating non-expert users; non-politicians (e.g. students) may have a need to find this information.
• 8.3.4.4.Different CUSTOM interfaces to meet different needs
• 8.3.5.Open-source tools can allow different audiences to customize for their needs
• 8.3.6.We can already pull all house bills off the 'net and XML format them
• 8.3.7.FSF has developed a system for commenting on changes in the license.
• 8.3.7.1.A few people wrote the license
• 8.3.7.2.A bunch of people comment on it
• 8.3.7.2.1.The comments were effective in changing the content
• 8.3.7.2.2.Even stupid comments proved useful, highlighting subtle overlooked elements.
• 8.3.7.2.3.The ABILITY to comment helps people be a part of the process
• 8.3.7.3.One programmer built a usable system to manage it

Saturday Breakout

PDF Mindmap: Breakout

• 1.BUDGET and DISCOURSE (domain) connection
• 2.IDENTITY & REPUTATION
• 3.PRIOR INFLUENCE
• 4.BARRIERS to participation
• 5.How the existing process will be mirrored in our ARCHITECTURE
• 6.Who are the CLIENTS of this information?

Next Steps

PDF Mindmap: Next Steps

• 1.EXECUTION
• 1.1.DEFINITION
• 1.2.PROCESS
• 1.3.(ORDER) NEXT STEPS
• 2.RESOURCES
• 2.1.References
• 3.JUSTIFICATION
• 3.1.Do we need it
• 3.2.Can we build it
• 3.2.1.FEASIBILITY
• 3.2.1.1.Unless something NOT
• 3.2.1.2.To SELL
• 3.3.How do we sustain it

Return to the WorkshopNotes.