The Cabinet Office is a perfectly good place for it. Its core responsibility is the machinery of government and the civil service. Where it is now is right with the people responsible for admin workflow.
This new thing looks like privatization. Oppose. Can always accept later! "Sam Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 14 Jan 2011, at 09:17, Stefan Magdalinski wrote: >> On 14 Jan , at 10:58:44, Mark Goodge wrote: >> >>> On 14/01/2011 08:30, Stefan Magdalinski wrote: >>>> >>>> >http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/public-data-corporation-free-public-data-and-drive-innovation >>>> >>>> How is this different from any of the previous initiatives from >>>> data.gov.uk to the e-envoy's office blah blah blah? >>> >>> That's a good question. Reading between the lines a bit, I think >it's intended primarily to address two specific points. Firstly, >data.gov.uk and the e-envoy's office are currently under the remit of >the Cabinet Office, which probably isn't the most appropriate long-term >home for either of them. But, on the other hand, giving the >responsibility to a department of state would rather miss the point >that data management is supposed to be neutral between departments. >Setting up an independent PDC will maintain departmental neutrality >while relieving the Cabinet Office of the task. >>> >>> Secondly, and a point that's explicitly referred to in the press >release, is that the government wants to find a way to monetise all the >data that's going to be given away for free. The suggestion seems to be >that they want private sector investment, although it's not clear what >form that will take. I can think of three possible routes this could >take, which, from a user's perspective, are good, neutral and bad >respectively. >> >> That's the bit I missed: >> So here we are, 'sweating the assets' again. Back to our 1996 square >one. > >not quite. > >The fights you had in 1996 were about getting the data out; now it's >about staying there, and showing that, all the stuff, in 1996, you said >would happen if data was opened up, actually did, and there is a real >benefit. That's a very different position to saying it would happen in >theory if only you could do it. > >Looking at the link you gave above, "Transparency" is one of the top >level tabs on the entire Cabinet office site. > >We hear so much in the media about Big Society, someone thought that >transparency should come before that in the list of things the Cabinet >Office does. That's great, but if we want it to stay there, and "free >data" to follow our agenda of it's own accord, we should be willing to >make the case that it is the right thing for it to do. > >Others disagree, and they will be more happy to make a case that >they're right, than we are, since at the moment, the agenda we think >best is being followed. We have to show that it's right. > > > >Cheers >Sam > >-- >I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people >who annoy me. > - Noel Coward > > > >_______________________________________________ >developers-public mailing list >[email protected] >https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > >Unsubscribe: >https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/a.harrowell%40gmail.com -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
