Government 2.0 Club

Comment

Comment by Stephen Buckley on March 9, 2010 at 12:52am

Adriel, Thanks for the clarification. However, if something on a Comment Wall was started so long ago that the original comment is now residing on a previous screen, then perhaps it is really a Discussion-thread and, so, should have been posted as such in this group's "Discussion Forum".

I've noticed that many people use the Comment Wall for extended discussions instead of the Discussion Forum. One problem with such "comment-thread discussions" is that many people (like me in this example) can't tell what or where the orginating comment is.

I'm not sure how to deal with this, i.e., how to make people discern between when to use "Discussion Forum" and "Comment Wall".

Comment by Adriel Hampton on March 9, 2010 at 12:26am

Stephen, it's an embedded wiki. Andy describes earlier in the thread.

Comment by Stephen Buckley on March 9, 2010 at 12:04am

Would someone please explain to us what is happening (above) in the area under "What is 'Government 2.0'?". Is someone having a conversation with him/herself (in regular vs. bold font)? Are we supposed to respond to this? Or simply scratch our heads?

Transparent communication, this is not. Please try again.

Comment by Kristin English on March 8, 2010 at 5:46pm

I like the concept of bringing people closer together, but what about describing this process as providing tools to engage. Instead of using communications, we could use relationships. I think the most important aspect of Gov 2.0 are efficiency, engagement, and collaboration.

Comment by Adriel Hampton on March 8, 2010 at 5:31pm

Andrea, I grok the commoditization of services and think it's definitely a "Gov 2.0" end. Do you have more on "socialization of processes," either in an existing post or in your head? :)

Comment by Sterling Whitehead on March 8, 2010 at 5:14pm

Ultimately, a simpler definition gets more people on board and allows us to track more people -- increasing the value of metrics that we all love.

Comment by Sterling Whitehead on March 8, 2010 at 5:13pm

David, Gov 2.0 would benefit from a simple definition and its benefits -- that will make it easier to recruit others to the Cause (capitalization intended) and spread it. When more people understand something, they usually hop on board and participate (which is one of the core ideas behind Gov 2.0).

We just need to be able to explain it to the average person and tell them how it will benefit them.

Comment by David Fletcher on March 8, 2010 at 4:58pm

Gov 2.0 is already succeeding. I can see evidence of that in the numbers I track every day. I can also see places where it is not succeeding.

Comment by David Fletcher on March 8, 2010 at 4:56pm

Do we really need to worry about defining Gov 2.0? To me it is constantly evolving and changing. Primarily, I think we need to focus on doing and communicating. Gov 2.0 needs to impact government efficiency in a positive way and not just being a time sink. For me it is a way to more effectively share the services and information that government supports, to get citizens involved in productive ways, and to measure the impact of that involvement.

Comment by Sterling Whitehead on March 8, 2010 at 3:38pm

For Gov 2.0 to succeed, definitions must be simplified -- commodotize? government as a platform? Few people know what these mean, and if people don't know what they mean, they won't care.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 66
• Next ›
• Page