This message cross-posted, as appropriate (see cc: field, above).
You may forward this message, as you see fit, to other "Open
Government" email-groups.
====================================================================
Dear OpenGovMetrics subscribers,
Because our group's purpose is to inform and discuss better ways to
evaluate "open government" efforts, please share your thoughts
about a recent report, funded by the Open Society Foundations, on the
various rating methods, used world-wide, for evaluating
"transparency" in
government.
-
"Measuring Openness: A survey of transparency ratings and the
prospects for a global index" (30 October 2012)
- by Sheila S. Coronel, Columbia University
-
http://www.freedominfo.org/2012/10/measuring-openness-a-survey-of-transparency-ratings-and-the-prospects-for-a-global-index/
ALSO, note that the following
feedback was posted to an
email-group run by the Open Government Partnership
(OGP):
-
Comment
on
"Measuring Openness: A Survey of Transparency Ratings and the
- Prospects for a Global Index by Sheila Coronel"
- by Helen Darbishire, Executive Director, Access Info Europe
- and Toby Mendel, Executive Director, Centre for Law and Democracy
(November 2012)
-
https://groups.google.com/group/ogp-civil-society/browse_thread/thread/c896665f6cd60a37?hl=en_US
... with the following excerpt being relevant, of course, to our group's
purpose:
- "Coronel's paper will hopefully initiate more of a
debate among advocates about existing initiatives to measure
government openness, something which would undoubtedly prove useful.
Despite the criticisms above, the paper provides us with a good
starting point for this debate, which we should take advantage
of." (emphases added)
Not long after, a response by Ms. Coronel was forwarded to a
second, closed OGP email-group (no link is available).
However, Ms. Darbishire then had it posted on her organization's
website:
- update 12 November 2012 – A response from Professor Coronel
is posted below the comment. Access Info welcomes this debate and invites
other readers of our website to send us their comments.
-
Here are a couple of
excerpts:
-
Response by Sheila Coronel: The need for further debate
- Helen Darbishire and Toby Mendel make interesting points but seem to
misunderstand the intent of my paper, Measuring Openness: A Survey of
Transparency Ratings and the Prospects for a Global Index.
.. and Ms. Coronel ends with
this:
- The last part of the paper suggests ways to move forward by
having a conversation on how the gaps in the research can be addressed.
We hope the conversation that the paper has opened and Darbishire
and Mendel took up can continue and broaden to include other
colleagues. (emphasis added)
My Conclusion: As you may have noticed, there is agreement
between Ms. Coronel, Ms. Darbishire and Mr. Mendel that this topic of
discussion needs to continue with more people included!
Unfortunately, this "debate" is scattered all over the place
(blog #1 --> email-group #1 --> email-group #2 --> blog #2
--> ???). If it continues in this disjointed way, it will become
a great example to cite for "poor practice" in engaging others
in public discussion online.
- So it's pretty obvious that this discussion needs a
home and, because the OpenGovMetrics email-group was
created (two years ago) for exactly this type of situation, I am
making an open and overt invitation to all interested
persons to share their thoughts on this topic --
openly -- with the other interested people already
here.
Feel free to forward this message to those who may be interested in
joining the moderated discussions at
OpenGovMetrics
email-group. ( To subscribe-by-email, simply send any
message to:
opengovmetri...@googlegroups.com )
best,
Stephen Buckley, moderator
OpenGovmetrics
email-group
( to join, send any email to:
opengovmetrics
+subscribe@googlegroups.
com )
or follow on Twitter:
@opengovmetrics
Massachusetts, USA
skype: opengov
24/7 phone: +1-508-348-9090