Not signed in (Sign In)

"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..."

Vanilla 1.1.5a is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  

    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.

    • 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?
    • 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?
.
 

Special Note:

Welcome to the NCDD website. What you see here, in the way of web design and layout is a work in progress. The forum feature works as you would expect, but we have just begun our web re-design and are testing the "bare bones" with this conversation. Many of the links and buttons outside the forum may not work as expected and we thank you in advance for your patience with us.

This re-design marks a new chapter in the online life of NCDD. It began in 1998 with a small online project called the Dialogue to Action Initiative and became the NCDD website after our first national conference in 2002. Beginning in 2009, we are turning our focus to embracing existing tools, instead of creating our own, as a way to further the networking opportunities of our members and offer examples, through use, of the many great tools that are available to us and our community.

Visit the Main Page of our website to learn more about NCDD. Please let us know what you think of the design! Send your feedback to [email protected].