"Can our field present a united front to the new Administration? Let's start by seeing if we can develop a set of principles for public engagement we can all endorse..."

1. • CommentAuthorLucas Cioffi
   • CommentTimeJun 11th 2009 edited

    

   Were the brainstorming phase and discussion phase (still ongoing) of the Open Government Dialogue compliant with the 2nd principle?  What specific changes are necessary to make the next dialogue more compliant with the following principle:
   

   Inclusion and Demographic Diversity

   Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.

2. • CommentAuthorTim
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2009 edited

    
   Once again, here's the extended text for this principle:

   In high quality engagement: Conveners and participants reflect the range of stakeholder or demographic diversity within the community or on the issue at hand. Where representatives are used, the nature, source, and any constraints on their representative authority are clearly identified and shared with participants. Alternatively, participants are randomly selected to represent a microcosm of the public. Participants have the opportunity to grapple with data and ideas that fairly represent different perspectives on the issue. Participants have equal status in discussions, and feel they are respected and their views are welcomed, heard, and responded to. Special effort is made to enable normally marginalized, silent, or dissenting voices to meaningfully engage — and fundamental differences are clarified and honored. Where necessary, anonymity is provided to enable important contributions.

   What to avoid: Participants are mostly “the usual suspects” — perhaps with merely token diversity added. Biased information is presented, and expert testimony seems designed to move people in a specific direction. People do not feel that it is safe to speak up, or they have little chance to do so — and if they do, there is little sign that they are actually heard. Participants, stakeholders, or segments of the public feel their interests, concerns and ideas are suppressed, ignored, or marginalized. Anonymity is used to protect abuses of power, not vulnerable critics.

   How does the Open Government Dialogue fare compared to these dos and don'ts?
3. • CommentAuthorTim
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2009

    
   From my observations, during the first few days of phase 1 participation was fairly low and driven mainly by "the usual suspects" (a lot of familiar names from organizations in this field such as NCDD, IAP2, AmericaSpeaks etc.). Only when the first phase was about to end (it's still ongoing, but May 28 was the cut-off date; ideas submitted up until that date were going to be fed into phase 2) did we see a huge influx of "regular participants". Anyone know what other outreach efforts for made?