> On 1/27/11 8:56 PM, Seth Cohn wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Philip Ashlock <p...@openplans.org> wrote:
>>> Hey Seth,
>>> These look pretty good to me. I'm glad to see that they're following what
>>> seem to be the best practices established in these policy areas.
>> Well, the 'they' is me, for the most part,
> It's really impressive for you to take this on. By "they" I just meant the policies :)
>> and the best practices were
> Just for clarity for others listening, the best practices I'm referring to are the Perens/OSI definitions for open source and open standards as well as the 8 principles of open data which I discussed in my aforementioned blog post.
>> actually hard to turn into good legislative language,
> This might be the first open data policy I've seen that includes the 8 principles other than the one from Ottawa, but theirs wasn't nearly as integrated into the legislation as this one. I've seen the 8 principles used so much that it seems like I've seen it in other policies, but I can't think of any others (save for some internal policies).
> As for the Perens definitions for open source and open standards, I know that the open source definition was used by the state of California and both of them were used by Vermont.
> I haven't really compared what you have to these too much, but if you have a chance, it'd be great if you could outline some of the changes you made in order to improve or adapt them for legislative language.
>> so hopefully the
>> next people down this road will find this easier than I did.
> That's the beauty of building on and improving what's already out there. Much appreciation for you having that attitude.
>>> I know these policies are just the foundation and more is set to come, but
>>> one thing worth considering as a starting point for taking action on a
>>> policy like this is to make the requests and responses for freedom of
>>> information requests open and online by default. This is often referred to
>>> as "open FOIA." In alignment with existing law, this would still adhere to
>>> privacy considerations and anonymize the requester if needed. This would
>>> reduce the cost and burden of fulfilling common requests. I'm not sure what
>>> the current status of New Hampshire's open records law is, but it might be
>>> worth addressing this open data policy in that context as well. I started to
>>> collect some pointers on establishing the release of data with a policy or
>>> initiative like this at http://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities
>> Depending on the results of these bills, I'll seriously look into
>> this. NH's got very good FOIA laws now, but this would be a good next
>> step, and certainly directly flow from the combining of the 2.
>>> Another thing worth considering is the approach to open source as it
>>> pertains to software developed by the government and made available to the
>>> public. The principles of this being open are much the same as for data
>>> being open, but with important benefits worth considering: if more
>>> governments are contributing their source code there is more source code for
>>> governments to use and build upon.
>> Yes, this is actually part of my pitch on the Open Source bill - the
>> potential for reuse is huge.
>>> In short, it
>>> might be worth taking internal open source development into account in
>>> either the open source policy or the open data policy.
>> Good point. I'm trying to focus on external acquisitions in the Open
>> Source bill now, because it's the more obvious piece here,
>> but yes, internal development is certainly the next step.
>>> It's great to know there are open source folks in a legislative body. Did
>>> you ever read this?
>>> http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress
>> I hadn't and I will share with the other coders in our body. I think
>> we have at least 5, out of 400, which is pretty good, considering
>> we're also still working our coding jobs so we can afford to work for
>> just $100 a year here at the NH State House. (Yes, you did read those
>> numbers correct. 400 House Reps, each paid $100 a year.)
> Gulp. Wow. Is that to encourage them to get money from "other sources" or what?
>>> I'm BCCing a few other lists:
>>> disc...@civiccommons.org
>>> opengovinitiative@googlegroups.com
>>> forgegov@googlegroups.com
>> Excellent.
>> If anyone wishes to submit short and concise written testimony (in
>> favor, I'd hope) to the committee hearing this (Open Data is being
>> heard next week, Open Source unscheduled but in the next few weeks),
>> I'd be glad to help make that happen. Just contact me.
>> thanks,
>> Rep. Seth Cohn
>> representing Merrimack 6
>> New Hampshire House of Representatives
>> Seth.C...@leg.state.nh.us
>>> On 1/27/11 7:13 PM, Seth Cohn wrote:
>>> I don't have bill numbers yet... but I'm introducing both an Open
>>> Source and an Open Government Data bill here in New Hampshire.
>>> I welcome feedback, directly please...
>>> Current bill language is now posted (patches are welcome (grin) ):
>>> Open Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html
>>> Open Data: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html
>>> Related bill (ie a perfect example of why we need the above Open Data
>>> bill)
>>> that I'm a cosponsor on:
>>> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0331.html
>>> yours,
>>> Rep. Seth Cohn
>>> New Hampshire
>>> (one of those rare geek/politicians who actually writes open source
>>> software and hopes to open government more)
> --
> Philip Ashlock
> Open Government Program Manager
> OpenPlans.org | @philipashlock | (360) 389-2741
