Open GovLoop? You Decide!
A couple months ago, we launched a forum asking: "Should OpenGov Spark OpenGovLoop?". We presented several reasons - to make it easier to find in search engines and enable more people to benefit from it - and offered several options along a continuum of being totally closed to wide open. I give much more detail in the forum, so I'd encourage you to read that full description and also check out your colleagues' comments.
Respondents overwhelmingly chose an option where anyone can join and view without moderation. But we're feeling like we want to be a bit more conservative. So here's what we would like to know now:
Would you prefer to keep some features of GovLoop protected? If so, which ones?
Right now, members have significant control through their Privacy Settings and blog publishing preferences and we will definitely do some education leading up to a rollout to ensure that everyone is comfortable with their level of disclosure.
If you were to keep some features protected, what would they be? Here's a list of Features for your consideration:
- Blogs
- Events
- Forums
- Groups
- Jobs
- Member Profiles
- Multimedia (Videos and Photos)
- Resources (Data.GovLoop, Wiki, etc.)
As always, this is YOUR community. Have your say! We'll collect and monitor feedback for one week, then share our rollout strategy with the community shortly thereafter.
Thank you never really captures how we feel about your honesty, transparency and collaboration.
And yet we'll say it anyway: Thank You!
Respondents overwhelmingly chose an option where anyone can join and view without moderation. But we're feeling like we want to be a bit more conservative. So here's what we would like to know now:
Would you prefer to keep some features of GovLoop protected? If so, which ones?
Right now, members have significant control through their Privacy Settings and blog publishing preferences and we will definitely do some education leading up to a rollout to ensure that everyone is comfortable with their level of disclosure.
If you were to keep some features protected, what would they be? Here's a list of Features for your consideration:
- Blogs
- Events
- Forums
- Groups
- Jobs
- Member Profiles
- Multimedia (Videos and Photos)
- Resources (Data.GovLoop, Wiki, etc.)
As always, this is YOUR community. Have your say! We'll collect and monitor feedback for one week, then share our rollout strategy with the community shortly thereafter.
Thank you never really captures how we feel about your honesty, transparency and collaboration.
And yet we'll say it anyway: Thank You!
Comment
-
Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on March 3, 2010 at 1:04pm -
Hi Don - Thanks for your feedback.
Actually, GovLoop members have posted nearly 500 videos!! Check them out here:
http://www.govloop.com/video
And you can embed video anywhere on the site, including in blogs, comment boxes, discussion forums and on your own page...we tell you how in this video:
-
Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on February 11, 2010 at 4:00pm
-
Wow - very thoughtful comments, Patrick. Thank you.
Fortunately, even if a bot were to complete the registration process for GovLoop, we remain the line of defense due to our manual approval of every member. My sense is that we will continue that practice even if we were to open the community and content.
Again, really appreciate your insight from the perspective of someone who has "been there."
-
Comment by Patrick Quinn on February 11, 2010 at 3:46pm -
We've operated K-TOC for 13 months on the model that all posted content (blogs, discussion posts, media files etc.) is open to the public. Membership is required to post anything to the community, and to view member profiles.Registration/membership isn't a silver bullet, but it does seem to amplify the signal-to-noise ratio. GovLoop has been an exceptionally clean forum since I've been a member, but the sophistication of today's spammers means it's only a matter of time before somebody unleashes a bot that can get past the first line of defense. That will probably remain true until something like OpenID becomes standard.
(Our registration protocol is very simple, requiring only a valid email address, so we expected to see a lot of spam-action. Happily, we saw none at all until last week, when we booted our first bot--it called itself "Vivian" and said it was looking for a meaningful relationship. The bot, which originated from an IP address in Senegal and is apparently well-known on dating sites, completed the registration process on its own. That suggests to me that we need a more robust screening protocol, and that's been added to my list. [sigh...])
Pre-launch, we were advised by our chief counsel to avoid any kind of "closed" or "private" group, out of concern that such groups might permit inadvertent violations of the state's Open Meetings statute. An open policy also appeals to me philosophically; if the ultimate result of this new technology is anything less than radical government transparency, the people lose.
-
Comment by Brian Cox on February 10, 2010 at 11:20am -
open
-
Comment by Adam Arthur on February 6, 2010 at 12:35pm -
@Henry Brown, well said. I am with you on your assessment. :)
-
Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on February 5, 2010 at 10:25am
-
@Henry - Thanks for your feedback. This change would not alter the ability of Group Managers/Owners to moderate membership. You still have that level of control up front.
-
Comment by Henry Brown on February 5, 2010 at 9:40am -
Am in total agreement with some/most that read only access to all sections, except Individual profiles and a limited number of groups could/should be provided
Can see NO need for anyone other than a current member who has at least been vetted to some degree could see anything much more than the name of other members. And would be somewhat ideal if the individual members could choose to limit what additional profile information was available to other members.
Would hope that this type of change would NOT change the requirements for SOME groups to have the "group manager/owner" approve each new member.
-
Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on February 4, 2010 at 9:57pm
-
@Tricia Good insights.
- On #1 - If we're open, the incentive to join = contribute. Otherwise, a person remains a passive recipient of information. If they have a question themselves, they'll need to join to jump into the fray! Of course, there's the principle of reciprocity - the balance of giving to receive.
- On #2 - Definitely a few non-Feds and non-government employees here...and I can see how it's a great place to recruit for people with great government experience...
@Andrea - As a community manager yourself, always appreciate your insight. Everyone that seeks to join a group will have a profile (as they do now). However, some people may choose to make it more private w/3 possibilities: a) open to all b) open to members only c) open to friends only. Even if your group is open and a person joins, you could request that people are open to "friend"ing you so that you can learn more about them. As a Group Creator/Moderator, that's your prerogative, to some degree. You set the tone for your group, eh?!
@Savi - I have to say that's one of the things that impresses me most about GovLoop'ers. I have never seen a conversation devolve even slightly into the stuff you describe on CNN, NPR, etc. Really, really awesome. Please see my comment to Andrea and the links in my main post to get more information about possible privacy settings. As always, we encourage people to be public..and will educate about being private when/as we open.
-
Comment by Andrea Schneider on February 4, 2010 at 3:16pm -
I want people to sign up to be a member and think all group participants should have to have a profile page. As a group leader I often check the profile pages to learn more about one group participant or another.
It's very useful to be able to know more about someone, it can make it easier to focus a response or encourage one when you know a persons interests and talents.
I don't think transparency means no holds barred.
When I sign on to GovLoop there is a measure of comfort knowing everyone is a member, it's free anyway. You have more control over inappropriate behavior if the person is a member.
When I respond or comment on someone else's blog I feel more responsible if I know I'm accountable to the larger group. I hope it encourages respect.
Things are moving so fast right now with so many different people involved with Open Gov and related things, it's very hard to keep track or who and what.
Having some boundaries is a good thing in my opinion as is having a point of view regarding standards for interaction.
Hope this was helpful. Have to think about it some more. Thanks for the questions.
-
Comment by Tricia on February 4, 2010 at 2:37pm
-
Two things:
1. If GovLoop becomes open, what would be the purpose of signing up to become a member? (other than to create a group and receive email notifications if someone responds to any of my comments and postings?)
2. Andrew - I WISH that all of us here on GovLoop have our jobs posted at USAJOBS - I believe there's a (pretty good size) handful of us memebers who are not Federal employees. (side note - as a recruiter, oftentimes there's a preference for previous government experience if that is the case, I am definately going to be targeting my recruitment to these sources vs. a general job board).
Just my thoughts and ideas. Thanks for listening!
Sponsor Spotlight
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
You need to be a member of GovLoop - Social Network for Government to add comments!
Join GovLoop - Social Network for Government