Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
New Members: Please Introduce Yourself
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  1 message - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post will appear after it is approved by moderators
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Stephen Buckley  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2011, 6:38 pm
From: Stephen Buckley <govmind...@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 18:38:11 -0400
Local: Wed, May 4 2011 6:38 pm
Subject: New Members: Please Introduce Yourself
Hello to members of "OpenGov Metrics",

As this is a public group, it will be possible for interested
"non-members" to browse our postings to see if we are the sort of
group that they would like to join.  I've done the same thing, and
one of the first questions that I ask myself is "Who ARE these people
(and what's their background)?"

So, let this be the discussion-thread for you to introduce yourself
to the group (and to future members).  I'll go first.

I'm Stephen Buckley, grew up on Cape Cod, Mass., got a degree in
Environmental Engineering (Purdue/Indiana), spent next 25 years in
D.C., mostly as a federal employee at five different
agencies.  Because my work was in the environmental area, it had
legal requirements for Public Engagement, and I was involved in the
providing guidance and determining compliance with those requirements
by my federal agency.  (So I have first-hand knowledge about
"performance measurement" in government organizations.)

I was involved in the 1990s "pre-cursor" to President Obama's
initiative for "Open Government" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/open).
That previous effort, largely unknown by today's younger feds, was
launched by President Clinton in 1993 and headed for the next 8 years
by V.P. Al Gore, was called the "National Project for Reinventing Government".

Just like the current "OpenGov" effort, it was about engaging with
citizen-customers in order to "work better, cost less".  During that
time, I created and moderated the 1,000-member "REGO-L" email-group
(1993-95), as well as the very first web-forum for the public to
comment on a federally proposed action (1997).

The "REGO" effort, however, did a very poor job of rating its success
across the federal bureaucracy.  Only the "best" agencies's work was
evaluated and recognized.  And now, after two years, the "OpenGov"
shows all the same signs that it is repeating that past failure to
measure itself (e.g., press-releases extolling agencies' activity as
actual progress).

So let us now talk with each other about learning from that mistake,
and figuring out ways to promote the development and use of standard
metrics for some objective measurement of the progress of the
"OpenGov" effort, at all levels of government, in the U.S. and other countries.

Please feel free to email me confidentially if you have any questions
about this discussion.  (And if you want me to call you, add your
phone number.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley, moderator
"OpenGov Metrics" google-group
http://www.OpenGovMetrics.com
http://twitter.com/opengovmetrics
also: http://twitter.com/transpartisan
.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »