Proposed Legislation in New Hampshire... - Open Government

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Proposed Legislation in New Hampshire...
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of p...@openplans.org designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.176;
Message-ID: <4D422A93.2080909@openplans.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:31:47 -0500
From: Philip Ashlock <p...@openplans.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: open-government@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Proposed Legislation in New Hampshire...
References: <4860b798-bd88-432f-94ed-7215868898fb@fo10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <94546e51-da0d-4d02-92fb-558ed3813...@n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <4D421BAD.6030...@openplans.org> <AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------090000020209020400090907"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090000020209020400090907
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 
<http://www.opensource.org/osd.html> and open standards 
<http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html> as well as the 8 
principles of open data <http://resource.org/8_principles.html> 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 
<http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/05-12/csedc/08-ACS2010-COS-ITS-0005-Open%20data%20%282%29.htm>, 
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 <http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Risk_Evaluation>).

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 
<http://www.cio.ca.gov/Government/IT_Policy/pdf/IT_Policy_Letter_10-01_Open_Source_Software.pdf> 
and both of them were used by Vermont 
<http://dii.vermont.gov/sites/dii/files/pdfs/DII-Open_Source_Policy.pdf>.

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 <http://www.openplans.org> | @philipashlock 
<http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | (360) 389-2741

--------------090000020209020400090907
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    On 1/27/11 8:56 PM, Seth Cohn wrote:
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Philip Ashlock <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:p...@openplans.org">&lt;p...@openplans.org&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
Well, the 'they' is me, for the most part, </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    It's really impressive for you to take this on. By "they" I just
    meant the policies :)<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">and the best practices were
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Just for clarity for others listening, the best practices I'm
    referring to are the Perens/OSI definitions for <a
      href="http://www.opensource.org/osd.html">open source</a> and <a
      href="http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html">open
      standards</a> as well as the <a
      href="http://resource.org/8_principles.html">8 principles of open
      data</a> which I discussed in my aforementioned blog post.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">actually hard to turn into good legislative language,</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    This might be the first open data policy I've seen that includes the
    8 principles other than the one from <a
href="http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/05-12/csedc/08-ACS2010-COS-ITS-0005-Open%20data%20%282%29.htm">Ottawa</a>,
    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 <a href="http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Risk_Evaluation">internal
      policies</a>). <br>
    <br>
    As for the Perens definitions for open source and open standards, I
    know that the open source definition was used by the <a
href="http://www.cio.ca.gov/Government/IT_Policy/pdf/IT_Policy_Letter_10-01_Open_Source_Software.pdf">state
      of California</a> and both of them were used by <a
href="http://dii.vermont.gov/sites/dii/files/pdfs/DII-Open_Source_Policy.pdf">Vermont</a>.
    <br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap=""> so hopefully the
next people down this road will find this easier than I did.

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    That's the beauty of building on and improving what's already out
    there. Much appreciation for you having that attitude. <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap=""></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities">http://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
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.

</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
Yes, this is actually part of my pitch on the Open Source bill - the
potential for reuse is huge.


</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">In short, it
might be worth taking internal open source development into account in
either the open source policy or the open data policy.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
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.

</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">It's great to know there are open source folks in a legislative body. Did
you ever read this?
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress">http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
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.)

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Gulp. Wow. Is that to encourage them to get money from "other
    sources" or what?<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:AANLkTi=a690yMmQ0byyrOwgRLdzP67xRw+_nZn4+q...@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap=""></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">I'm BCCing a few other lists:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:disc...@civiccommons.org">disc...@civiccommons.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:opengovinitiative@googlegroups.com">opengovinitiative@googlegroups.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:forgegov@googlegroups.com">forgegov@googlegroups.com</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Seth.C...@leg.state.nh.us">Seth.C...@leg.state.nh.us</a>



</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">

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: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html">http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html</a>
Open Data: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html">http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html</a>
Related bill (ie a perfect example of why we need the above Open Data
bill)
that I'm a cosponsor on:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0331.html">http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0331.html</a>

yours,
Rep. Seth Cohn
New Hampshire
(one of those rare geek/politicians who actually writes open source
software and hopes to open government more)

</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
      <title></title>
      <div style="font-size: small;">
        <div>Philip Ashlock</div>
        <div>Open Government Program Manager</div>
        <div> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.openplans.org">OpenPlans.org</a>
          | <a href="http://twitter.com/philipashlock">@philipashlock</a>
          | (360) 389-2741 </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>

--------------090000020209020400090907--
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
