Re: [egov] Future of eGov TC

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

   Thanks, Peter, for the pointer to that interesting work.
   We are aware of a few other governments doing similar information
models, with an eye to sharing and distributed resources.  We will
encourage them to cross-post links here.
   Of course, the portal model always is attractive to would-be 
portal owners ... but seems often to fail, perhaps because the 
control model is less attractive to others in a multi-stakeholder 
system.  As in commerce, so in government.
   Personally, I also very much like your organic model of standards 
projects:  work being fueled and legitimated by use cases rather 
than 'synthetic' tasks. Peter, this e-Gov group appears to be a 
useful nexus for information sharing, and has persistent interest. 
However, it does not seem well served by the short-term, 
project-management orientation of TC rules.  Our best advice is that 
e-Gov should be reconstituted as an interest group "section", with 
its own mailing list and elective membership, but in a status that 
need not carry additional costs, licensing obligations or 
deliverable-driven mandates.  As you say, a "Technical Committee" 
always can be formed for IPR reasons if a specific work project 
organically requires it.  But it seems to me that what we have here 
is more of a virtuous conversation, and we should treat it accordingly.
    I first mentioned this a few weeks ago and received a few, but
generally positive, responses.  If there is no objection, I suggest
that we proceed.  Other reactions?  Kind regards  Jamie

~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org

Peter F Brown wrote:
> Dear all: I had interesting discussions with both Patrick Gannon
> and Carol Cosgrove-Sacks of OASIS at the Adoption Forum in London
> the other week. In the course of our talks, the issue of the
> future of the eGov TC arose once again. I expressed my view that
> the TC will only work on the basis of organic rather than
> synthetic developments: in other words: if we attempt to create a
> piece of work for the sake of demonstrating the usefulness of the
> committee - say "let's build an eGov upper-level ontology" then I
> believe we are less likely to succeed than if we identify a
> current gap in eGov work that the TC might be able to fill and
> then see what that translates into in terms of practical work.
> 
> In an attempt to do just that, I would like to put to the TC a
> very first sketch of some work that I started on within the
> Austrian government and then with the European standards agency,
> CEN (whose 'eGov Focus Group' I nominally chair) but which hasn't
> got off the ground * * * the initiative was entitled "eGovernment
> Resources Network" and attempted to build a model with which
> public agencies could develop resources sharing 
> capabilities * * * An introduction to the issue can be found at
> www.pensive.eu/uid/0101 and a draft discussion paper at
> www.pensive.eu/uid/0079.
> 
> These issues have aroused a lot of interest within the European
> Union but the European Commission has tended to want to protect
> and extend current initiatives in this space but which tend
> towards, what I would consider a somewhat dated "give me all your
> stuff and we'll publish it through a portal" model rather than
> the "keep your own stuff but make it available in a federated
> environment" model * * *  Would there be interest in discussing
> this further and taking these and other recommendations through
> the TC? * * *