Novel idea to rename the government 2.0 "experiment". But is it all about rebranding this notion for people to feel like their federal government is being more transparent? I'm not sure that it's that simple by giving it a new name, although they all still share the same message - the government is not about the politicians but rather the people who vote & are citizens.
How would you consider this "rebranding" to be anything different from Change.gov? Do you consider change.gov to be more Obama-centric & now more bureaucratic since his election to the presidency? Or is your premise based on creating a campaign that the government could use to help bring in citizens to educate them that their government is being more transparent now with the new administration?
If I had to choose amongst the winners (excluding the one written by your interns whom I feel sorry they get more work as a result of their contribution), I'd choose WeGov rather than iGov because it has a connotation of being more pluralistic rather than singular in nature. Government shouldn't be about just an individual but about the community and if we're spinning 2.0, then it's all about the network & community.
RE: the Government Vista example - very hilarious, but I'd like to add to that. Once people grow tired of Government Vista, the government will release a new version and call it Government Mojave and fool the public once again and then reveal it to be an improved version of Vista, much to the anger or chagrin of the US public. Hey, it worked for Microsoft, right?
YES! Don't reinvent or fight the current. Get on top of the wave.
ctovision
· 1 year ago
Mark, your post was a great dialog because it showed the wide swath of folks who have an interest, so thanks for that.
For me the big takeaway is that we need a way to tell some folks who are stuck doing things the way they have always done them that something is changing. For some folks it might help to say gov2.0. For others it may help to say iGov or the others you mention. For others, however, I fear they will never get it and never change, no mater what we call it.
Anyway, thanks for keeping the dialog up. I look forward to your next post.
Cheers, Bob
Gadi Ben-Yehuda
· 1 year ago
How about NexGov?
In my mind, it stands for two things, first, obviously, is Next Gov. But also, Nex(us) Gov, as in the digital media that stands at the nexus of the government and the governed?
Kevin Curry
· 1 year ago
How can we (re)name/brand that which has yet to be defined or even described? What is Government 2.0? How do we recognize it when we see it?
Government 1.0 -> Government 2.0 -------------------------------------------- NOAA active weather bulletins -> NOAA active weather RSS Agency reports -> Open Government Data Budget competition -> transparent investment representatives' web sites -> representatives' blogs Public council meeting -> public council WebEx Requests for Proposals -> Contests for Apps (solutions)
Is it appropriate (or just obvious) to map the 7 tenets of "What is Web 2.0" to government? What might be the "Core Competencies of [Government] 2.0 [Agencies]?"
Hey -- I'll save you the shipping! Coming to DC on Thursday to do more interviews for the "Democratizing Data" book & a major brain dump with Vivek Kundra. Let's get together!!
Now I can share a cuppa joe with my old high school acquaintance & CIA alum Aldrich Ames......
Michael Fidler
· 1 year ago
I like WeGov, but I'll through in my own, OURGOV!
kristin wolff
· 12 months ago
Charlie Leadbeater, author of WeThink [http://www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx] is undoubtedly smiling, as am I. The emphasis on we is exactly right. Thanks for the question, I'm about to tweet the responses.
Marije van den Berg
· 12 months ago
Interesting discussion! At a national conference in the Netherlands last week, called "Overheid 2.0" (indeed, Government 2.0), we decided that the only real alternative name for Government 2.0 is: Government 1.7. "Overheid 1.7", in Dutch. Overheid 1.7 is an initiative of Karlijn & Marije van den Berg, both into innovation (and politics), but both sceptical-with-a-smile about the results.
Why? Because we think that the new & improved Government is and always will be "under construction". And if we get somewhere near 1.7, we're more than happy with it ;)
A new, hip, name, with a logo - that won't get us nowhere; nor will new techniques. It all depends on the attitude of civil servants. As we all know, don't we?
We therefore tried to teach the people who attended (mostly civil servants with a lot of good intentions and knowledge, but mostely without an organisation to match that) the 7 lessons of Government 1.7 (http://overheid17.wordpress.com/7-lessen-van-ov...). We told our audience: If you can't do this, please don't try to! We won't be mad, just glad. Because 2.0, you have to do that proper, or not.
l'lll (try to) transate them here
7 lessons for a government 1.7
1. Keep your ego to yourself 2. Be a person, not your job description 3. Don't moderate. Participate! 4. Experimenting? Tsk. Just do your job well 5. Don't negelect your friends 6. Go into that crowded pub; don't open up an empty one yourself 7. Do what you do best, link to the rest
I'm curious what you all find - maybe you can set off change in the Netherlands (too)!
Paul Evans
· 11 months ago
An awful lot of this seems to be about rebranding government to some blue-skies alternative that doesn't / is unlikely to exist. Obama already has enough problems dealing with the expectations that he's unlikely to meet without hoisting himself on a new aspiration. Here in the UK, we plumped for 'Ethical Foreign Policy' back in the late 1990s - an boy had that been rammed back down our throats ever since.
In the US in particular has become less of a representative democracy than it used to be in the widest sense of the term. It could move back to being one - and it would result in better, more orderly government.
So here's how I'd rebrand government:
"Representative Democracy."
It doesn't have to preclude participation or deliberative models - it can very tidily run alongside them.
Joe
· 11 months ago
"Metagovernment" sounds wonderful, and it is the embodiment of Government 2.0: http://metagovernment.com
All Comments
How would you consider this "rebranding" to be anything different from Change.gov? Do you consider change.gov to be more Obama-centric & now more bureaucratic since his election to the presidency? Or is your premise based on creating a campaign that the government could use to help bring in citizens to educate them that their government is being more transparent now with the new administration?
If I had to choose amongst the winners (excluding the one written by your interns whom I feel sorry they get more work as a result of their contribution), I'd choose WeGov rather than iGov because it has a connotation of being more pluralistic rather than singular in nature. Government shouldn't be about just an individual but about the community and if we're spinning 2.0, then it's all about the network & community.
RE: the Government Vista example - very hilarious, but I'd like to add to that. Once people grow tired of Government Vista, the government will release a new version and call it Government Mojave and fool the public once again and then reveal it to be an improved version of Vista, much to the anger or chagrin of the US public. Hey, it worked for Microsoft, right?
For me the big takeaway is that we need a way to tell some folks who are stuck doing things the way they have always done them that something is changing. For some folks it might help to say gov2.0. For others it may help to say iGov or the others you mention. For others, however, I fear they will never get it and never change, no mater what we call it.
Anyway, thanks for keeping the dialog up. I look forward to your next post.
Cheers,
Bob
In my mind, it stands for two things, first, obviously, is Next Gov. But also, Nex(us) Gov, as in the digital media that stands at the nexus of the government and the governed?
Government 1.0 -> Government 2.0
--------------------------------------------
NOAA active weather bulletins -> NOAA active weather RSS
Agency reports -> Open Government Data
Budget competition -> transparent investment
representatives' web sites -> representatives' blogs
Public council meeting -> public council WebEx
Requests for Proposals -> Contests for Apps (solutions)
Is it appropriate (or just obvious) to map the 7 tenets of "What is Web 2.0" to government? What might be the "Core Competencies of [Government] 2.0 [Agencies]?"
http://kevincurry.blogspot.com/2008/12/governme...
Now I can share a cuppa joe with my old high school acquaintance & CIA alum Aldrich Ames......
Thanks for the question, I'm about to tweet the responses.
Why? Because we think that the new & improved Government is and always will be "under construction". And if we get somewhere near 1.7, we're more than happy with it ;)
A new, hip, name, with a logo - that won't get us nowhere; nor will new techniques. It all depends on the attitude of civil servants. As we all know, don't we?
We therefore tried to teach the people who attended (mostly civil servants with a lot of good intentions and knowledge, but mostely without an organisation to match that) the 7 lessons of Government 1.7 (http://overheid17.wordpress.com/7-lessen-van-ov...). We told our audience: If you can't do this, please don't try to! We won't be mad, just glad. Because 2.0, you have to do that proper, or not.
l'lll (try to) transate them here
7 lessons for a government 1.7
1. Keep your ego to yourself
2. Be a person, not your job description
3. Don't moderate. Participate!
4. Experimenting? Tsk. Just do your job well
5. Don't negelect your friends
6. Go into that crowded pub; don't open up an empty one yourself
7. Do what you do best, link to the rest
I'm curious what you all find - maybe you can set off change in the Netherlands (too)!
In the US in particular has become less of a representative democracy than it used to be in the widest sense of the term. It could move back to being one - and it would result in better, more orderly government.
So here's how I'd rebrand government:
"Representative Democracy."
It doesn't have to preclude participation or deliberative models - it can very tidily run alongside them.
http://metagovernment.com