We are on the cusp of creating a citizen-driven government enabled by technology.
On 27 March the Government 2.0 BarCamp will be held in the Washington, DC area. An intrepid collection of organizers are trying to create an event that brings together the best minds in Enterprise 2.0. I plan on attending and I hope others do too because there are some tough questions and issues facing this community. The gravity of which I do not think many appreciate.
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
One day we are going to look back on the achievements of Intellipedia with the reverence it deserves. We will say to ourselves, “Can you believe they took that risk? How did they not get fired?” History is right to remember the courage of patriots like Sean Dennehy and Don Burke who took on their agency, community, and challenged the traditional notions of information sharing to advance national security.
Now we see agencies like OMB, TSA, and DoD following in the ODNI’s footsteps by adopting innovative Web 2.0-like approaches.
Maxine Teller, Peter Corbett, and Mark Drapeau recognized that this was a highly encouraging trend. They wanted to prompt a government-wide movement toward Enterprise 2.0 solutions through this barcamp. Bravo! It’s this kind of courage and leadership that will start such a movement.
My fear is that we are taking a brilliant idea and not setting the proper conditions for success.
Why a BarCamp?
BarCamps were created as a reaction to the O’Reilly FOO Camp. Instead of just talking about the future of the Internet, developers sought an alternative conference style built as a working session. A defined problem or disciplinary area was selected in advance and then opened to all who would be interested.
I imagine the reason a BarCamp was the preferred model was to target the attendee list toward a Web 2.0 audience. The Government 2.0 BarCamp evite lists at least 500 attendees and a wait list of 133. Five to six hundred people is a lot to rally around or attempt to solve a particular topic or problem. With some design tweaks I think we can get to the meat of many important issues and allow people to self-select out of the event.
My first recommendation is to jettison the 101 sessions.
Right now, we have quite a few “Intro to Web 2.0″ sessions. Why? The whole idea of a BarCamp is to scope it around a broad topic that gets people into the room who have a stake in a problem and are motivated to fix it. Those who want to learn about Web 2.0 can attend FOSE or DoDIIS Worldwide. Another option is to explore the good work being done by NAPA on government collaboration. Cutting these orientation classes will get the serious operators in Government 2.0 into the event and reduce distractions from the tough challenges.
Reframing the Challenge Space
I do not think the focus of this event should be on learning or rehashing topics that have been covered since 2006. I think we should focus the energies of this group around creative solutions to tough technical, fiscal, and policy challenges.
Problem 1: Institutional Change in the National Security Community
Few argue with the success of Intellipedia, but it is not without its challenges. As Chris Rasmussen has recently commented, Intellipedia has come a long way, but tough institutional encumbrances remain.
We have failed our leaders by not providing a pragmatic solution to the intelligence production cycle. Its time that we identify and make moves to implement that solution.
Why focus on national defense? Our national security community has set the bar for risk taking and it has become an incredibly compelling reason for other agencies to adopt its practices. If we get the solutions for national security right, then we can set the tone for the rest of the government. And, perhaps more importantly, offer a common set of solutions for others.
Problem 2: Procurement and the Budgetary Cycle
Government procurements are often not treated seriously unless there are millions of dollars behind them. With open source solutions, this problem is reversed. The cost of these solutions is so small that they are often viewed as pet projects and do not receive the necessary funds for training, maintenance, hardware upgrades, and stability enhancements.
I share Aaron Brazell’s concern that our movement will suffer from a fad-ish trend. We could see a rush to capture/procure tools and Web 2.0 “expertise” and then we will suffer in silence as those initiatives die from neglect.
We need a portfolio of investment and procurement strategies to combat this political reality.
Problem 3: Citizen Engagement with Policy
We are exiting an administration that classified more information than Nixon. We have an opportunity to expose methods for deeper citizen engagement in government. We should be tackling issues like:
Should the rules for government data disclosure be revised? (FOIA)
Should policy decisions permit citizen comments and edits?
Should government employees work in a single, common technical environment? (.govipedia)
What can this White House do to advance the cause of a more citizen-driven government?
These issues are salient and will scope the future of our government. Not leveraging the opportunities presented by the Government 2.0 BarCamp would be a mistake.
Brian, I appreciate your enthusiasm and blog post. I think you’re right about the need for more focused and “advanced” discussion around Government 2.0. However, in the case of Government 2.0 Camp, I have to stand by the spirit of a BarCamp: to provide a “platform” for community-driven discussion. Because many attendees have had little or no exposure to the unconference format, we’ve been trying to put SOME general structure (sub-platforms?) around the two days. I think that your passion for and interest in convening Gov 2.0 thinkers for a more solution-oriented discussion fits perfectly with this structure, but cannot and should not alter the organic nature of the event. In other words, I highly encourage you and others to create/lead/organize sessions that are geared towards problem-solving and advanced discussions (as opposed to general gov 2.0 education). There are others who are interested in expanding the breadth of Government 2.0/social media understanding and education across the government–they will organize sessions along those lines.
Let me also remind everyone that Government 2.0 Camp is the inaugural event of Government 2.0 Club…. this is just the beginning of the ongoing discussion.
I look forward to your session(s) at Government 2.0 Camp!
I have already updated the wiki to reflect the sentiments expressed in my blog post. We’ll get there in one way or another. I think we all agree that we are in this fight together.
I realize that this is not easy and I applaud your efforts, but there are some practical realities that we have to consider. I’ll focus on two closely related ones: Space and funding.
We can’t have a topic as large as Government 2.0 and expect our numbers to be manageable. There are only so many venues that can accommodate 500+ people. Those that are above 500 cost a lot of money. So then we have to change the funding model. Right now, we have a corporate sponsorship model. However, government employees can not accept gratuities over $25 from one person in one company or from one event in a given year. How are we going to get the audience we need into the room?
By having learning topics, you are blowing out your attendee list for people that can learn about it in other venues. We have very few self-selection design features in the event now (geography is an example). We have already made the choice to structure the event, let’s finish the job by focusing the topic areas.
Wow. So much great discussion. I don’t think I can respond to all of it, so I’m going to say just one very important thing:
Gov20camp (and barcamps in general) do not ’select who attends’ or ‘program the agenda’ prior to the event. It’s the organizers job to create an ideal blank canvas and that’s what we’re doing – and will continue to do.
Anyone reading this who needs further insight into the approach, please watch the Gov20Camp Pre-camp Field Guide video:
http://www.government20club.org/2009/02/government-20-camp-pre-camp-field-manual/
Peter
@Peter True, but barcamps are definitely scoped to an audience. You don’t have a barcamp about computers (although I guess you could), you have barcamps about something specific to control factors such as cost, space, and attendance. You can do that lots of ways:
Topically:
Barcamp Apache (http://www.us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/schedule/barcamp-apache)
Geographically:
Barcamp Austin (http://barcamp.org/BarCampAustin)
Professionally:
Education Barcamp (http://cc.tcosc.org/barcamp/education/)
We have chosen Government 2.0 as the topic area. Holy cow! Our government does *everything*. Should we be surprised that we can’t find a venue large enough?
I understand the desire to not overly control the destiny of the event. This ain’t ‘Nam there are rules. We need to choose a rubric of governance that protects the intent of your event (i.e. is flexible), but is not overly prescriptive.
For instance, if we agree that there should be no agenda in advance, then enforce that rule. Don’t let people program out the event on the on the wiki. They want to do some preprograming, let them do that in another location off the event’s wiki.
For those interested in the citizen participation aspects of e-government, there’s also eDemocracyCamp2, April 19 in DC (http://barcamp.org/eDemocracyCamp2).
Brian, your matter of fact writing style is a breath of fresh air and you bring some much needed focus to this topic. That said, I agree with Maxine about the need for some general structure that starts with a foundation for some. I’m hoping my travel schedule lets me be at the gov2.0camp the entire time, and if so, I plan on spending time hanging with folks like you to help clarify an action agenda for the future.
My worry is one articulated by many other of our friends. Too many of us fans of Web2.0 are the same ones noodling through Gov2.0 and in general we are folks who are open to change. Many of the leaders in our enterprises are not so familiar with Web2.0 (and some are not even familiar with IT) and in many cases those are the people we should be trying to get to these events.
Anyway, I look forward to more dialog on these topics.
My overall feeling is that I agree with Peter: let this be controlled by what the participants want.
Brian, if you want an outcome-driven thing, go for it in the sessions you organize.
But don’t tamp down the people who want to come to discuss subjects you consider basic.
The only way you’ll ever see successful use of these tools is by educating the ppl inside gov’t like me who actually implement the projects. And we have to convince our managers, most of whom have no clue what Web 2.0 is.
Without a great learning forum like this barcamp, you’ll have yet another event where a zillion people outside gov’t debate what should happen, with little to no understanding of the policy and culture environment. And the people inside will neither have their voices heard nor be able to help those outside.
Unlike me, most won’t or can’t invest the home time necessary. So I favor providing every possible venue for learning, esp. free ones.
I also think you focus too much on nat’l security. That’s just one governmenta duty.
As an example of the benefits of learning sessions, I think it enhances transparency to have a 101 session where those of us with blogs discuss our strategies while people still struggling with hesitant management listen.
I agree with educating others and I would hate to turn people away based on their desire to learn, but I think there are many, many, many other venues to do that.
I thought the reason a BarCamp model was selected was so that it reached people who were already up-to-speed on Web 2.0. I come to find out that it was done for “flexibility.” This is not what a BarCamp was ever intended to do. That type of model is more like an Open Space conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-space_meeting).
We can’t expect that in one day we can appropriately educate folks on Web/Enterprise 2.0 *and* all the policy, technical, political issues. That’s just not a practical goal.
I gotta run to a meeting. I’ll be back to address the national security focus issue.
Great stuff! Let’s keep the dialog going.
Jeffrey you make some great points but I have to say opinions vary on your assertion that national security is “just one government duty.” To me that is like saying “sustaining our constitutional form of government is just one function of the government.” I guess it is true but misleading. It is the most important function of government, IMHBUCO.
That said, it may be best if gov2.0 camp figures out its best focus and it might be best focused on non-DoD/non-Intel aspects of our government.
Cheers,
Bob
Just saw this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR2009030202852.html
Who says that national security does not impact us all?
When did I say nat’l security doesn’t affect us all? Of course it affects me as a citizen and, to some limited degree, in how I need to be part of my agency’s information security.
And it’s even part of EPA’s role as an agency, in terms of protecting things like water supplies. But it’s not EPA’s sole role.
Bob, we can have an interesting debate over a beer about whether defending the country is the #1 gov’t job, in the sense of prioritizing. But that still doesn’t mean it’s the sole thing the gov’t does, nor does it mean the majority of potential attendees are interested in discussing that subject.
By all means, of course, organize a nat’l security barcamp! I’ll be sure to let the relevant folks at EPA know about it.
@Jeff Apologies if my link was quip-ish. I didn’t mean to imply that you were devaluing the isn’t important. I think anyone who cares enough to comment on this topic is a patriot through-and-through.
To elaborate on what I meant in the blog; progress on E2.0 initiatives in the national security community is a powerful example for evangelists faced with detractors. It becomes difficult for a detractor to throw the “risk flag” in the face of many government agencies who are perhaps the most risk adverse because their job is to save lives. Life and death decisions in intelligence? Absolutely. Life and death decisions in the Department of Education? Not so much. So when an evangelist in Education faces a detractor who talks about the risks involved to the agency, the national security community’s example supplies powerful ammunition to put that fear back in the box.
Example: “If the CIA is willing to share data this way, then maybe we should too . . .”
So, if we can innovate and supply concrete methods to overcome the next wave of detractors in national security, all the better for those who come behind.
Can the door swing both ways? Yes. If another agency who’s mission is typically outside of national security comes up with an idea that can be leveraged . . . cool. Let’s use it.
Absolutely what the intelligence community has done is a prime example and tool to use!
In fact, I’ve used it precisely the way you suggest, when people raise “security issues.”
So I’m quite serious: organize some sessions – they’ll be great for everyone to listen in on. But to broaden the audience, I’d suggest making it explicit, like “What the intelligence community did and how everyone can learn from it.”
Did you say debate over a beer? Ok, I’m on! I can debate anything over a beer.
But I know you are correct about the government having many other functions. In fact, if you told me to argue that national defense is not the most important thing I would probably quote from the Preamble to the Constitution, which lists the common defense after justice and tranquility. I guess that means it is the third most important thing we do.
Cheers,
Bob
Brian. My compliments for a thoughtful and passionate post. As you know I am not much of a bar or for that matter any other camp goer. That said I do have thoughts on the domain and issue based on my position and optic. I’d this like to offer that I think you hit the nail on the head with your post and it’s focus on some practical application issues. I personally believe that it is such emphasis that will get the buy in and support needed to see the effort through to corporate adoption. I particularly think that your focus on the tools providing a solution to some of the production cycle challenges is exactly the right area of focus. With apologies to grinds and colleagues with a different view, I think the attack on finintel, for example, is misguided. The focus should instead be as you suggest–how can web2.0 make it better? Keep up the good work.
@Geoff
Good thoughts, but making the current cycle just go faster is my concern. Some parts of the current cycle may need to be thrown out like one of those old-time bikes with the big wheel in front
In fact, a cycle brings up images of feedback loops and self-selection when the more accurate mental image is the old triangle expressing chain-of-command power.
There are some practical, do-right-now ideas that can help get us to the thinking that agency-specific vetting is not mutually exclusive from community-based collaboration. Said another way, what we know, how well we know it, and what we don’t know are not always more real, truthful or accurate just because they were “vetted” vertically. Moreover, horizontally generated ideas in transparent systems can often stand alone and don’t always need to be parsed through a vertical system to be more “real.” And how many vertical vetting systems do we have out there? That’s why our analysts produced 50,000 reports on near identical topics in 2006.
(citation near bottom of article)
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4216851
There is the ancient saying, “Man who chases two rabbits catches none.”
Are the goals to provide an intro to web 2.0 and social media? To convince “higher ups” that this is a good thing? To brainstorm ways to use 2.0 tools? To develop a policy framework for implementation? If the answer is, “Yes!” please see initial quote above.
I think that the barcamp model is great for an advanced group teasing at, debating and working big issues and not such a good model for vessels that need to be filled. Both audiences are important, the question is what is the camp trying to accomplish.
I agree with Brian that there are other types of venues for the 101 level. Not that you want to disinclude folks who don’t know, but that really makes for a different discussion. (Maybe I have a bitter-bias because it seems that every policy meeting we have, a new person joins and we waste a lot of time on the basics and things already covered.)
That said, I was at my first barcamp last weekend, and it was the best program I have ever attended. Exposing people to this format–and having them take responsibility for their learning–is a great experience that everyone should have.
Brian and all, this is a good discussion!
I tend to agree with Brian. It seems somewhat incompatible to choose a “geeky” BarCamp model and then also have an emphasis on Twitter 101 or whatever.
While it’s against the spirit of BarCamp to physically ban people, I don’t see a problem with focusing the overall event clearly on discussing (say) the “top five issues facing government 2.0″ or similar.
Also, I like the idea of having a “gov 2.0 lab” on the side of the main discussion rooms, where people can go and learn. There are so many important issues to discuss, too many “101″ sessions could detract from the convened tribe coming away accomplishing something.
And I think we want to accomplish something to move forward on. If we ‘merely’ want to get everyone together, a cocktail party would have been better than a two-day conference.
Completely agree that there are many other events where people can go and learn basics. Not to mention tons of online, free resources. In fact, information is so available one could argue that there’s no good reason for attendees to not have learned much of this before showing up.
We’ve done exactly that sort of thing at barcamps here (Portland, OR) – run a sort of lab (hands-on) track either before, after, during lunch, or alongside. We often combine barcamp and democamp, for example. Worth recalling some of the tenets of openspace events – whoever comes is the right people, whatever happens is the right thing. Looking forward to meeting you all at the end of the month.
Perhaps there is room for another model? I agree with Gwynne – last week’s transparency camp was a great success – but there are other successes to be had.
Last year I went to Startup Weekend – where a bunch of folks showed up to launch a product in a weekend. It was a blast and productive – to a point.
What if, as a follow up to a bar camp, we identify ONE PROBLEM to solve, and then gather as many people in the room as wish to participate. Break into subgroups and form a quality proposal/solution over a weekend.
We’d need policy, technical and other folks (I’d be an “other”). People will have gained the insight and inspiration of the others at the event, and there would be a tangible result.
Who’s in? Lets get a wiki started to nominate problems, and get people interested in solving the issues.
If it’s successful, we could have a full series.
My understanding of the format is that it lets the attendees choose what to do.
As Peter Corbett explained it at Transparency Camp, there is no goal beyond “convening the tribe.”
So Brian, put together a session or sessions discussing how to use Web 2.0 tools to enhance nat’l security.
Productfour, go for it on picking a goal and working toward it. I’ll try to contribute.
FYI, though, some of the best sessions I attended last weekend were open-ended exchanges of viewpoints and information, without any specific goal, so I look forward to those, too. Basic research vs. applied.
Also, keep in mind that Peter, Maxine, Mark, and I see this as the launch event for Gov’t 2.0 Club. If we put up “Blogging in gov’t: a beginner’s chance to learn” and 3 people attend, or we do “Using social media to enhance nat’l security” and 200 try to cram into a room for 95, we’ll know what to do differently next time.
And with all these strong opinions on what would be most useful, I heartily encourage you to organize Gov’t 2.0 club events to accomplish your goals.
Way at the top is the fear facing many: “How did they not get fired?” Maxine is on target with the idea that innovation has to come from the outside.
To have outside contractors or facilitators bring in social networking’s progressive communication tools may be the simplest path to implementation. The blame-gamers will be happy and the innovators in agencies will get a chance with to learn new skills. Who gets to say “I told you so.” depends on the power of the idea and the strength of the innovator/implementers vs.the detractors/saboteurs.
When web/gov 2.0 becomes “best practice,” we’ll be talking about something else.
Thank you, great article. Wish there were webcasts of barcamps.
And to the folks working on implementation of new ideas within your existing government structures: May God bless and keep you safe.
@Mark – we’re going to try to webcast some of it.
One thing that was missed in this blog was the fact that Intellipedia was built on the solid foundation of the innovative and flexible Intelink (run by ODNI’s IC Enterprise Services office -ICES). Without an infrastructure like Intelink in place to link all 16 agencies of the IC together, Intellipedia would have failed or just been a stovepiped wiki in one or two agencies. Intelink and the ICES office have been reinventing themselves ever since 1994 with an emphasis on open source software. Intelink has continued to be relevant by bringing new capabilities on three separate domains in such a way that members of the IC do not need to learn new applications to use the capabilities as they move from domain to domain. While I applaud the efforts of pioneers like Sean Dennehy and Don Burke in getting Intellipedia in use, I would suggest that the lessons learned from Intelink are even more pertinent to Gov2.0. Intelink learned how to be relevant across 16 agency stovepipes and let them work together at different levels. They are truly the unsung heros that everyone keeps forgetting because it’s not “2.0″. My question: Who will be the Intelink for the US Government?
Great point Kelcy – there are a number of things going on here – and all of them are exciting.
1. Using social media to forge a better partnership between the government and the governed – greater participation, service, agility, responsiveness, transparency and accountability
2. Greater collaboration within the government – to maximize resources, quality of work, agility, efficiency, innovation and all the other lovely things that come along with that.
Each sub bullet of the above 2 deserve thought and consideration as to how best to achieve (and no doubt its not a comprehensive list – add yours!)
Problems to be solved are equally great:
1. Infrastructure
2. Policy
3. Expertise
4. Cultural barriers
5. Ease of use (its gotta be good).
The better we capture these and understand the problems, the more oppty we have to solve them. Have you ever seen so many people lining up to help?
I look forward to joining and supporting govt 2.0 club and seeing where that goes.
Here! Here!
I agree with both Brian and Maxine. This is a great first start, but if we are looking for real fixes, real solutions, this might not be the venue of that.
This is why I was looking to put together the Enterprise 2.0 event for Government this fall. We’re still in the planning phases of the event, so there is room to apply this model to what I am trying to organize.
I think BarCamps and unconferences are great for Networking, learning new things, and starting the discussion. But if we are truly trying to create a revolution to effect real change, we have to dive deeper into the issues in which Brian listed above.
At the risk of sounding a bit too agreeable, I think everyone here is right — within the myriad abstract possibilities that Government2.0Camp could fulfill.
However, with only three weeks left before the camp and 633 people already signed up to attend, I think the more important question is, what do the attendees want? What stage of understanding are they at? And what do they need in order to move forward the use of these technologies within their agencies?
The time has passed for selling the camp to a specific audience: the uninitiated or the tech savvy, for example. At this point, that die has been cast, and we need to be engaging with them to determine their needs, or leaving the format open enough that they can define it themselves.
Like Wayne, I concur… I think Brian and Kelcy have ID’d some great break-out sessions topics. Allow me to provide a few examples of titles:
‘To Blog or Not to Blog? That is NO longer the question.’ – Infers that blogging is here to stay, personal/professional blogs are the norm, no longer the exception. CIO/GSA should be the example for all future Gov CIOs. This could easily fall into the 101 track…
‘Info Sharing in a Bi-Polar World: How the IC is dealing with protecting AND sharing vital intelligence information with its partners’ – The main construct would be to showcase past/current success stories with a focus on Lessons Learned. What can other agencies and ‘federations’ (DHS anyone?) learn from the IC? (Poss 101 or 202)
‘Day 3: How do we get there?’ Pick ‘low hanging’ fruit that we can accomplish by either partnering with a Fed Agencies and/or choose a ‘common IT enemy’ that we all attack. NOAA / FEMA / NGOs comes to mind. Focus could be how do we leverage Web/Enterprise 2.0 technologies to address Natural Disasters… (202 or 303)
‘Policy = four-letter word’ Realistically, many of our innovative approaches will openly challenge current ‘think’ Likewise, Policy will have to be addressed and more than likely be changed. This is usually not a technology-only problem space. What ‘Lessons Learned’ can be applied to dealing with Policy (can also insert Legal, Security, CI, Privacy, etc.) issues. (303 or Panel?)
Sorry for the long windedness, just trying to put down my initial thoughts since I was made aware of this Gov2.0 Camp.. Sooo looking forward to it!
Brian: Please review (and possibly attend) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009 Please let the other Gov 2.0 campers know as well. Thanks much!