-
If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
-
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
|
IlluminatedFederalBudget
Page history
last edited
by PBworks 16 years, 1 month ago
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
- 1.1.2.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
- 1.2.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
- 2.1.4.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...
- 2.1.4.7.3.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
- 2.2.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
- 2.2.2.2.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
- 2.2.3.3.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
- 3.2.4.2.Not ONE consensus, but perhaps a "true" statement of differing and incompatible viewpoints (agree to disagree)
- 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
- 4.2.4.4.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!
- 5.1.1.4.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
- 5.1.3.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
- 5.1.4.5.3.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?
- 7.1.5.3.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?
- 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
- 2.RESOURCES
- 3.JUSTIFICATION
- 3.1.Do we need it
- 3.2.Can we build it
- 3.3.How do we sustain it
Return to the WorkshopNotes.
IlluminatedFederalBudget
|
Tip: To turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list above.
|
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.