FoI was the best thing Blair did (won't argue about whether there were any others!)
However Blair has since described it as his worst mistake, MPs are known to hate it (expenses debacle) Main thing I would change is the time limit - most requests are answered on the last possible day (or just after). So there should be an *additional* target AVERAGE response time - so theres a max and an average. Paul /)/+) On 22 December 2011 14:18, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/12/2011 13:42, Adam McGreggor wrote: > >> ... that aside, I'm one for chucking out the option of (machine& >> human -readable) live-data; counts&c, against the database, so there >> >> is real-time info, along with, the chunky annual report, that has had >> (crowd-sourced?) manual review. >> >> We could then see some stats on the authority pages; "Consistently >> replies on time; Consistently fails to respond in time, Has an >> extra-ordinary high count of internal reviews:requests" > > > Similar to what I did earlier in the year by extracting data from the API: > > http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2011/08/number-crunching-whatdotheyknow/ > > I think stuff like that would be a useful addition to the WDTK site itself. > The problem with it, though, is that some authorities, for no fault of their > own tend, to attract far more unanswerable or daft requests than others, > which distorts the stats (look at requests to the Prime Minister's Office > for some classic examples). > > What I'd like to see is some form of peer-review on WDTK to try and weed out > the more frivolous or daft requests. As I pointed out in that blog post, a > significant proportion of requests which result in either a refusal or a > "not held" response are caused by people asking misguided or malformed > questions. I'm not sure that we can - or should - actually stop people > asking them (since FOI is, by design, applicant-blind and that means it has > to be numpty-blind as well), but allowing people to rate a question itself > as good, bad or indifferent (maybe via something similar to the > classification game, or by means of the annotation system) could help to > give a truer picture of which authorities are better or worse at responding. > > > Mark > -- > Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine 2 > http://mark.goodge.co.uk > > _______________________________________________ > 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/paul%40idltd.com _______________________________________________ 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
