On Monday, the National Security Archive, an open government think tank, released the results of a government-wide Freedom of Information audit. For those following the Obama adminstration’s efforts at opening government, their findings may come as an eye-opener.

Despite what they applaud as a clean break from the practices of the previous administration, the National Security Archive found that only four of the many departments of the federal government have improved over previous years with respect to their releasing and sharing of government data. Furthermore, though the President has released numerous memos regarding the sharing of government data, only a minority of the departments have made meaningful improvements. Disturbingly, some of the oldest requests for government data are not as old as one or even two adminstrations: some requests for data from the National Archives and Records Administration are 18 years old.

Aside from the broadly negative findings, the National Security Archive’s report maintains an overall positive tone, indicating that one year after a change in policy may be too soon to judge the effectiveness of that policy change. Instead, the report urges greater leadership and pressure from within the administration and from the public. Indeed, at this time when politics blur the appropriate comprehension of actual facts, we can hardly afford to be kept in the dark. Sharing data is the only logical solution.

The solutions to public healthcare, proper management and distribution of energy technology, and every other meaningful policy depend on access to fundamentally raw, no-spin data so that we can draw our own conclusions. I stand by the belief that when citizens have access to real information, they will collectively make the best choices.

If open government and open data have the capacity to do the most good for the greatest number of people then Open Gov Tracker is the Open Gov movement’s heart rate monitor.

Open Gov Tracker displays real-time information on the ideas, votes, and comments that have gone into the federal government’s various open data project. It displays the input you the citizen and we the people have given to the various branches of government.  From here, one can access federal government branches and their universal platforms for sharing government data. This means that not only can you access the data, but  now you can see which branch is getting the most input.

The site also displays information on the branches receiving the least amount of input as well as those with the greatest amount of input. This allows those at the top to be recognized without forgetting those at the bottom.

Dividing the input into ideas, votes, and comments has an added benefit: we get to see who really is generating good ideas, and what others really think about those ideas. The votes, like most social websites, allow a basic ranking of the ideas input by others. The comments section allows one to track the debate in real time. Additionally, the design (by IdeaScale) enables you to see if there is a lack of ideas as compared to comments or votes (highly informative).

So let’s choose a branch as an example. I am a scientist, so naturally the NSF is a branch which concerns me. If I scroll down the list to the NSF, I can see that so far (10:34 PM EST 2/23/2010) 13 authors have contributed 19 ideas, generated 65 votes, resulting in 14 comments. At the far right are two links, one to a twitter account (which I am now following) and one to the site’s open portal.

From the open portal, I can choose to sign in with my google account (convenient) and begin participating (this does not show up in buzz, but that would be a cool feature). Now, I can browse ideas, vote on them, and provide comments as I see fit. So I long in, propose an idea, participate in the discussion, and vote on other ideas. Real simple, it tool me 5 minutes to do all that.

The idea that the federal government is actually paying attention speaks to the massive changes the internet is affecting on societies. With any luck, these projects may help to truly ensure that gross inefficiencies are dealt with. If it makes it to state goverment level, let me know – I don’t ever want to stand in a 2 hour DMV line again.

Since then, I have had limited success with similar attempts. I decided to figure out what it was that made the first organization succeed while others failed. The fundamental problem was motivation of the recruits.

As I considered motivation, I came to a realization that there is a distinct difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. We intuitively know that intrinsic motivators produce more internalizable and long-lasting goals than extrinsic motivators. Nevertheless, we have been tempted with money, promotion, etc, or threatened with loss of income in order to produce work.

For example, we know that giving someone a challenge to acheive a goal that they value actually produces better results than giving people money. Organizations may find that they get productive behavior with income-based incentives, but truly creative, innovative productivity arises out of internal drive. In fact, creativity is highly linked to finding inner meaning through work. These intrinsic incentives are truly powerful.

So what are the most basic intrinsic motivators?

The answer is autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

How did I come upon this magical triplet? Two words: Dan Pink. One place: TED talks.

In the foregoing movie, you will see a good-looking, ostensibly even-tempered Dan Pink wax emotional and even borderline furious as he tries to embed the principles of good motivation into the gushy grey matter between our ears.

Why is he trying so hard? Because we’ve been getting it wrong for so long. Since the dawn of civilization leaders have been attempting to use coercion as a means of enforcing their will. Even during the Enlightenment, some thinkers were still convinced that rule of law could not be maintained without external enforcement or incentives. What is being discoverd in economics, sociology, and psychology is that motivation can come from intrinsic meaningful sources and this requires no enforcement – just participation.

This is really at the core of Government 2.0. A centralized leviathan telling everyone what to do is unnecessary; rather, Gov 2.0 is a realization of open participation in government by the people and the effectiveness of small groups of skilled, passionate participants. The lesson for government is that people participate when they feel that they are free, are contributing needed skills, and are a part of something worthwhile.

Fundamentally, this means letting go of the reins and allowing people to do more or their own free will and choice. The function of the government in this light then is to provide training, standards, and a participatory framework. Such a framework would allow open communication and common trust so that citizens feel free to share and participate. If government can succeed in establishing this kind of infrastructure, the majority of the work is done. In this environment, participation becomes its own motivator.

Originally posted at: Shareable.net

So the next couple posts will be rapid-fire (I’ll leave a day’s space between each).

A place where you can find anything

A general store is a wonderful concept where a merchant would enable people to have items of nearly any kind shipped to a single location, convenient to a town square. The idea is simple: the postal service, parcel services, and general shipping would all come to the general store where the customer could freely shop and even order things from any supplier, provided the merchant had the catalogue.

Naturally, in this era of fascination with steampunk and other modern interpretations of Victorian/Edwardian culture, some of us are bound to get an idea like this buzzing in our heads. Add that to developments in New Urbanism culture, and one has to ask why are there so few general town markets?

The Social Benefit of Community Shopping

In all honesty, I have the privilege of being close to a corner market which supplies all my needs, is locally owned, and owned by people who are fantastic and even know my name. It shouldn’t be a novelty though.

With the advent of instantaneous communication and procurement of products from nearly anywhere, the internet age has a few limitations, mostly that are detrimental to the social aspects of person-to-person contact. So, how does one manage these impacts, use good technology, and still go to their corner market? I’m not completely sure, but I do have an idea:

Re-invent the General Store

The general store of the future would be stocked with all kinds of normal goods which you’d expect to find, and would even have a small warehouse full of “one of everything”, just in case someone needs it (all digitally catalogued and searchable online). This general store sets up an agreement with Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, Ponoko, and other online retailers, enabling them to have cheaper shipping by shipping in bulk to a central location. Then, you can choose a cheaper shipping option on any one of these sites so that the product you wish to purchase is available either immediately (in stock) or within a day or two (better than 3 to 5 business days).

The added benefit over heading to a big box chain is that these operations would be small, serving the needs of local communities, employing local people, and would enable you the customer to have a more intimate experience with the proprietor and even social opportunities as your neighbors also stop in to pick up their needs. Making this primarily a pedestrian-accessible business would also enhance the image of the community and the overall social atmosphere of the neighborhood in which it exists.

Open Source?

The big road block I have here is how to make this community-participation driven…

Perhaps the general store would have built in a coffee shop or library or bookstore or some other social infrastructure that would act as a platform for community idea sharing and involvement. Perhaps it could function as a co-op where use requires service in the running of day-to-day operations, or something like that. Another cool idea would be to enable in-kind trading, effectively reviving the concept of the trading-post. This would allow people to purchase goods of a specific intrinsic value with goods of another intrinsic value, etc, etc.

Now it’s your turn! If you have any ideas on how to improve the social aspects of trade and markets, send in a comment and get ideas flowing.

A cornucopia of experiences

The core questions are quite straightforward:

• Is sharing fundamentally better than the alternative?
• What are the limits of sharing?
• Should art, science, inventions, services, etc. become the property of the commons? What should not be considered a part?
• Should the commons become more global? Is it only effective locally? Where is the balance?
• Cui Bouno? Who benefits? What are the benefits? How can we extend these benefits universally?
• What are the shortcomings? How do we manage these failings? What institutions/apparatuses need to be innovated? What is already in existence? Do existing infrastructures need to be modified?
• As we share, we become more transparent. What data should not be shared? Is full transparency desirable/possible? Should we expect full disclosure from politicians, businessmen, etc?

This discussion in comments here or on the ad hoc Friday Google Wave:

h2oneuron at googlewave dot com

Just ask to join the discussion, and I’ll put you on the Wave.