Should we still use GovLoop?
GovLoop has now been purchased by a commercial provider. I'm wondering if ethically we should continue to use govloop as it's no longer a "government only" site. Previously it had been operated by a federal employee as a private enterprise in his off hours. Now it'll be operated by an employee of GovDelivery and so any discussions are no longer "private" or "restricted to feds".
I think it maybe time to get GSA or someone to start something up in the new GSA provided cloud to take this service over so that it'll be in Fed space and run by Feds.
What do you think?
I think it maybe time to get GSA or someone to start something up in the new GSA provided cloud to take this service over so that it'll be in Fed space and run by Feds.
What do you think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris L. Latendresse on -
am not happy about this news, and I think in the spirit of "community" this issue should have been posted for discussion in advance. You can be sure as a commercial entity, GovDelivery will be looking for ways to 'profit' from this community, and I didn't sign up to be party to that end. I'm disappointed in the pioneer of this site, it really smacks of self-interest to pull such a move. I understand others have posted here that 'all will be well', but I've yet to see this happen with these types of acquisitions. I don't want pop-up adds, constant conference and today's latest deal interfering with the conversation, and under a profit model, this is where I predict it will go. Today, as group moderators, we are empowered to filter out the 'noise', I'm not sure this will be the case moving forward.
In response to the discussion point, I am not a federal employee, I am a Canadian private consultant (non-government) but also a graduate student intimately involved in research about government in the Canadian context, and GovLoop.com has been a blessing. In my opinion, what we don't need are more closed government communities if we are truly to harness the collective intelligence that is out there and interested in making government the best it can be.
What I propose is that we setup a GovLoop.com-like entity, non-profit in which the site is operated on donations or very small subscriptions by the community for the community. Thoughts?
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Bryan on -
I think Pam Broviak's comment is more disconcerting than the threat of any ads Steve is likely to find acceptable. I'm not sure I understand your position completely. (And I think I'm just as hypersensitive to conflicts of interest as you appear to be.) Suppose Steve could make a few million dollars editing the content on this site into a book about Open Government. Would you be opposed to that? That would be hard to understand since it would presumably mean more people would benefit from exactly what we're trying to do here--focus and share the fruits of our collective insight. But worrying about the decay of the usefulness of the site by virtue of annoying and interfering advertising seem pointless--I'm guessing it would be Steve's worst nightmare. Who wants to see their child become a whore?
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Burns on -
Chris, If you ever think GovDelivery is involved in anything that is making GovLoop less useful to you, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. I love GovLoop, and I don't want to be involved with anything that damages the community. I hope you’ll let our actions speak over the coming weeks, months, and years. -Scott (CEO, GovDelivery)
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Quigley on -
I'm a great believer in the power of the market to drive forward innovation. I think this is great move for GovLoop + look forward to the added features and the advertising ; - )
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Blount on -
I am with you Chris. I know there are some major hurdles that must be crossed, but I believe in free market. If Steve makes a site that people no longer like, they will leave and he will have to change his course. If he makes a site people like, then all is well. No problem. He made this site with people's opinions in mind. So, I have no worry that as the owner of a budding business, he will have plenty of voices who will keep everything in line. I try to police myself, and everyone else will police the site, so I don't see an issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Tobi J. Edler on -
I agree that we do need a fed only space to discuss and collaborate in private without having to worry about somebody trying to sell us something or push a hidden monetary agenda. I will pose this question up the chain at GSA and keep you guys informed if any progress is made. I am a big time advocate for the government ppl having a non mixed company place to let our hair down and hash things out.
I think we are using gov loop because it was billed as a by feds for feds kind of thing and then they switched horses mid stream, so to speak. But as far as functionality it is a great tool, user friendly and comfortable enough for many of us to continue to use it on an unofficial business function basis. Until we have an alternative, GovLoop is the best we got!
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua joseph on -
This was a very helpful discussion when GL was acquired by GovDelivery late last year. A few days ago, ICG acquired an 89% stake in GovDelivery, as Alex George points out in his recent post. He links IDC to the press release...there was also an article on the acquisition in NextGov
Think it would be helpful to have Steve and Scott revisit some of the comments/concerns about how user generated content and personal info would be used going forward. Scott did a great job addressing these earlier, when GovDelivery acquired GovLoop, but it's not clear how things may be affected with ICG now owning the most of GovDelivery. Thx.
-
Permalink Reply by GovLoop on -
Good point Joseph...Here's update on ICG and how effects GovLoop/GovDelivery.
A lot of people have commented how they liked this article reporting on it...I haven't spoken a ton about it because not really a change (just swapping out behind the scene investors) but the spirit is same and Basically these conversations hold the same as before...just really providing more resources to do more good. Happy to answer any questions...
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100105_7347.php
Burns said the deal was an opportunity for his firm to shed its dot-com era investors and expand its efforts to help federal agencies adopt social media.
"We were founded at the end of the dot-com era. As we've matured, the time horizon has lengthened and we really wanted a partner who could help reset the clock," Burns said. "The nice part about ICG is that they're much more focused on long-term value creation than quarterly earnings targets. That's important to us given the ebbs and flows of our market, to be focused on the long-term, not just the next three months."
"There should be no changes to operations or how we work with clients. It's really just having a better partner [in ICG] who shares a vision with management," he said.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Allen on -
I am an industry person with a government focus - and have been for over 20 years. I have seen things be worse and somewhat better but always I have appreciated my ability to participate. Government discussions, within security parameters - needs as many credible inputs as possible. Circling the wagons around Fed govt employees only would really defeat the purpose of idea sharing, brainstorming, and respectful suggestions. As an "outsider" of the fed employee circle being able to sit around the campfire helps me be a better consultant. It helps me be a better consultant to my direct Fed clients as well as those in commercial that are trying to help govt also. Please do not think because we provide a product or service to the govt that we are simply trying to push our agenda. If we can help, you (govt) need to let us in alittle. If this site continues to do that then we all win.
So no do not stop using this site. It has earned a reputation and is here so we can all find it.
-
Permalink Reply by Kristin Dziadul on -
Any social network today has the potential to be bought out by someone. While some have not become subject to a buyout or takeover yet, it is a possibility. While I am not a government employee, I am interested in topics surrounding Government on the Internet so I am a member. I was happy I was given the ability to speak with others on these topics. I agree strongly with Teri that it will probably be a good thing for government employees and agencies to gain inputs and feedback from the greater community, not just a niche of government-only community. I think this will help advance government initiatives online in general and will get the word out in a more widespread manner. Keep up the great work everyone, and hope that this will be a positive move in the right direction for the government. After all, it is government by the PEOPLE right? Meaning everyone.
Kristin
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Bacal on -
So, three years on...any of you still around and have opinions on how it has worked out?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
Social Media Stats
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
