Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Seth Cohn > wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. >> >> While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm >> trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. >> I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is >> enough support to add, once I get general buy in. >> >> > My concern is if it's not in the guidance, the policy makers will > weasel out "OOXML is a standard so MS Office is good" (ISO 29500) - > even though, in fact, there are NO conforming implementations (MS > admits MS Office does NOT conform to the ISO standard). The > requirement for multiple implementations helps make IETF documents > self-regulating, as it does this. How do you know it's open? There > are two independant implementations of software that reads/writes the > standard, and they can exchange information. No need to worry about > definitions (except related to patent/copyright). For better or worse, this is going to have to be a policy maker decision. Trying to craft legislation that specifically excludes a party out(almost like a bill of attainder) is going to be fiercely fought in the courts. Keep it simple and start a process similar to the ETRM that Massachusetts has. Also seeing as how the ISO spec for OOXML covers four separate documents versus ODF's one, some kind of value proposition can be raised. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Seth Cohn wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: >>> My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a >>> requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at >>> least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format >>> interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final >>> format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two >>> indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be >>> implemented by anyone. > > While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm > trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. > I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is > enough support to add, once I get general buy in. > > My concern is if it's not in the guidance, the policy makers will weasel out "OOXML is a standard so MS Office is good" (ISO 29500) - even though, in fact, there are NO conforming implementations (MS admits MS Office does NOT conform to the ISO standard). The requirement for multiple implementations helps make IETF documents self-regulating, as it does this. How do you know it's open? There are two independant implementations of software that reads/writes the standard, and they can exchange information. No need to worry about definitions (except related to patent/copyright). jeff. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 07:25:49 am you wrote: > doesn't this cover that? > > (d) Make readily accessible, on the state > website, documentation on open data formats used by the state of New > Hampshire. When data in open format is made available through the > state's website, a link shall be provided to the corresponding data > format documentation. > > In this case, common use of ODF would mean that a link/download to the > ODF documentation (aka the spec) > should be posted on the state website. If the spec is copyright to > the point of forbidden reposting, I think that fails > > (4) Has a specification available for all to read, in a > human-readable format, written in commonly accepted > technical language; > > That's not really available for all to read, only those with $335, right? I'm a huge public policy buff so I tend to think about the implementation of a law beforehand. My point could probably be fixed by whatever department that manages documents just having copies of it available. The greatest value I am seeing here is that along with the openness of the technology there is an openness of process as well. Rather than betting the farm on a proprietary solution, we also have a record of how it worked out. I am reading the policy that Massachusetts has in place (www.mass.gov/itd/etrm) and the state government can look towards this to figure out where the pitfalls are. >[...]would ISO standards be considered Open? I'm reading through the ETRM a bit and I see that ANF considers the ISO open. However, they go with the Ecma and OASIS bodies first, I assume because they are more nimble than the ISO. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: >> My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a >> requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at >> least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format >> interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final >> format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two >> indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be >> implemented by anyone. While I agree this would be nice, it's the sort of specifics I'm trying to avoid... that's more far policy detail than statute level. I'll put it on my list of 'would be nice' changes, to see if there is enough support to add, once I get general buy in. On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Ryan Stanyan wrote: > I'm being a bit impractical and redundant here, but I would also like to see > all standards be available to the public on request. I know this was covered > in the amendment, but I am looking at the ISO website and I'm seeing that for > ODF it would cost about 335 dollars to get the specification for it. I'm not > sure how it could be implemented without infringing on the ISO's copyrights. > I see a lot of standards that NH mandates, but they seem to be set at the RSA- > level. doesn't this cover that? (d) Make readily accessible, on the state website, documentation on open data formats used by the state of New Hampshire. When data in open format is made available through the state's website, a link shall be provided to the corresponding data format documentation. In this case, common use of ODF would mean that a link/download to the ODF documentation (aka the spec) should be posted on the state website. If the spec is copyright to the point of forbidden reposting, I think that fails (4) Has a specification available for all to read, in a human-readable format, written in commonly accepted technical language; That's not really available for all to read, only those with $335, right? Jeffry wrote: > Good point. For ODT, the saving grace is that it's an OASIS standard > as well, which is freely available > (http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OpenDocument-v1.1.odt) - but > that's not true for other ISO standards. Which solves ODT, but raises the question, would ISO standards be considered Open? Seth ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
> I'm being a bit impractical and redundant here, but I would also like to see > all standards be available to the public on request. I know this was covered > in the amendment, but I am looking at the ISO website and I'm seeing that for > ODF it would cost about 335 dollars to get the specification for it. I'm not > sure how it could be implemented without infringing on the ISO's copyrights. > I see a lot of standards that NH mandates, but they seem to be set at the RSA- > level. > > -Ryan Good point. For ODT, the saving grace is that it's an OASIS standard as well, which is freely available (http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OpenDocument-v1.1.odt) - but that's not true for other ISO standards. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 02:13:16 am Jeffry Smith wrote: > My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a > requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at > least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format > interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final > format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two > indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be > implemented by anyone. > > jeff I'm being a bit impractical and redundant here, but I would also like to see all standards be available to the public on request. I know this was covered in the amendment, but I am looking at the ISO website and I'm seeing that for ODF it would cost about 335 dollars to get the specification for it. I'm not sure how it could be implemented without infringing on the ISO's copyrights. I see a lot of standards that NH mandates, but they seem to be set at the RSA- level. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
My recommendation would be to include (based on IETF procedures) a requirement that any non-NH Government standard be implemented by at least 2 independent programs, that can read and write the format interchangably. For NH Government developed ones, the final format/specification cannot be finalized until there are at least two indendent programs, to ensure that the format is, in fact able to be implemented by anyone. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, John Abreau wrote: > While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall > we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to > BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for > protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were > explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. My extremely limited understanding is that 501(c)3 organizations are permitted some political actions, but political action cannot be a major purpose of the group, and there are some other limitations. Those limitations apply to the organizations only; individual members, acting on their own, are not limited by those rules. Where this list falls I'm not sure. I suspect it depends on usage. So the occasional political discussion (such as what Seth is posting) is fine, but if that became a significant part of list traffic it might be a problem. For those who don't know: 501(c) is the section of the Federal tax code which treats tax-exempt organizations. The IRS does not recognize "non-profit"; it defines classes of organizations which are exempt from Federal taxes. Not all such organizations are non-profit[1]. 501(c)3 is about "charitable" organizations. 501(c)3 orgs are special in that donations to such orgs are tax deductible by the donor. [1] The National Football League is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt organization. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
And to be clear: I posted the 2 bills (or rather the draft texts of them, which aren't otherwise online yet) and invited comments because of my respect for the many astute minds on this list. Individuals who wish to help pass such legislation as interested citizens are welcome (and those with issues against it are also welcome, to be clear, I'd love to hear the reasons against to help me prepare answers for them), but I'm certainly not asking for GNHLUG as a formal group to take a position, lobby, or otherwise get involved. yours, Rep. Cohn On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, John Abreau wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote: >>> Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of >>> a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was >>> from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) >> >> >> B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New >> Hampshire >> B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. >> B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! >> >> >> -- Ben > > > While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall > we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to > BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for > protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were > explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote: >> Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of >> a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was >> from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) > > > B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New > Hampshire > B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. > B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! > > > -- Ben While I don't know all the intricacies of the various 501(c) types, I recall we had problems at the Boston Computer Society back in the '90's due to BCS's 501(c)3 status. When BLU was part of BCS, we got in trouble for protesting the Communications Decency Act, because as a 501(c)3 we were explicitly prohibited from participating in political action. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix AIM abreauj / JABBER j...@jabber.blu.org / YAHOO abreauj / SKYPE zusa_it_mgr Email j...@blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote: > Does it make sense to set up a separate list (or mailman topic) for > these conversations? A1. If there is consensus to do so, another list is trivial to add. A2. This list (gnhlug-discuss) currently has no formal topic, charter, or policy (aside from the general legal policy of gnhlug.org (http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/LegalNotice)). P1. Historically, list traffic has been self-policed by list members, with varying degrees of effectiveness. P2. I think we probably should have some sort of formal topic, charter, or policy for gnhlug-discuss. P3. I think we are unlikely to arrive at P2. P4. Currently, this list doesn't get nearly enough traffic to warrant separate lists. What little interest we do currently draw is more likely to be harmed by balkanization or barrier to entry. P5. I expect this thread will consume far more list bandwidth than the thread(s) in question will. > Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of > a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was > from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) B1. GNHLUG is a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New Hampshire B2. GNHLUG has not applied for IRS Federal tax-exempt status at this time. B3. Volunteers interested in facilitating B2 are welcome! -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
I think the discussions are both relevant and interesting. If Seth starts asking about baby formula laws, etc. then perhaps another list, but "Open Government Data Bill" would seem to fit with "Open Source", IMHO md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
[meta] Re: Open Government Data bill (for comments)
Does it make sense to set up a separate list (or mailman topic) for these conversations? If so, I would propose gnhlug-lobby. I'm not suggesting that it is inappropriate for GNHLUG consideration, but I would like to keep "tech" conversations separate from governance (either internal as in gnhlug-org, or external as in these messages). (Actually, I find these conversations very appropriate for GNHLUG consideration.) Or maybe this message is inappropriate if GNHLUG is a 501(c)3 instead of a 501(c)4. (I couldn't determine what type of organization GNHLUG was from the Wiki - at least not by searching for '501'.) --Bruce On 01/10/2011 04:23 PM, Seth Cohn wrote: > This isn't quite on topic for the list, but it's certainly within reason... > think what you would do with RSS feeds, XML, and other useful things > like that being generated from the data at the State level... > > The principles are based on the 2007 summit that set up the basic ideas: > http://resource.org/8_principles.html > http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles > > yours, > Rep. Seth Cohn > ... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
