Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Gerald Green — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:01:36 -0000

For God sakes, Obama, do what YOU think is right on the stimulus, not what the Republicans want. They will vote against you anyway. You are trying to save jobs and time's a' wasting fast.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Gerald Green — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:01:36 -0000

For God sakes, Obama, do what YOU think is right on the stimulus, not what the Republicans want. They will vote against you anyway. You are trying to save jobs and time's a' wasting fast.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

mixtmedia — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:17:11 -0000

Thanks for bringing our conversation on my blog into the mix, Andrea. :)

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

makco — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:41:20 -0000

wow

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Joe Boutte — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:58:36 -0000

How about Gov 2.0 2U4U?

Government for the people!

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Patrick — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:41:05 -0000

Not sure if anyone has added this one yet.

Gov 2.0-2U.

Yes, it keeps the overused Gov 2.0. But it gives it context with the reason for why we need Gov 2.0.
And while the tech folk have tired of 2.0, the average folk are only getting around to understanding it.

I should know , I sell Internet connections for a living.

Thanks for the informative blog.

Patrick

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Kevin Curry — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:20:12 -0000

It seems we are trying to name/rename a concept of boundless meaning. I don't see anything wrong with Government 2.0, per se. I just want clearer understanding of what we mean when we say Government 2.0. I think the diversity of nominations here suggests only a loosely shared understanding of what was meant by the original term. Is it enough to say that Government 2.0 is a domain-specific application of Web 2.0? Some here have asserted it's more than technology. I agree. (Web 2.0 is not tech, either BTW. It's tech that recognizes/leverages the profound role of human behavior and scale.) So, at minimum it seems would follow a model. We can start by answering the question: how do the observations and principles of Web 2.0 map to Government 2.0? Maybe that leads to a new name and maybe it doesn't. I dare say it will lead to a better shared understanding.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Mark Drapeau — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:45:56 -0000

There will be a follow-up post about this shortly!!

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Dan Sheerin — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:56:47 -0000

Interesting and important exchange ... Indeed, as Benjamin Disraeli put it:

"Few ideas are correct ones, and which they are none can tell, but with words we govern men."

I have participated in similar discussions, within the USG, about possibly changing the name of Intelink and Intellipedia. In this regard, I see these USG "Intelligence" community derived labels as having a lot of baggage, and as not being particularly helpful in terms of breaking down barriers among USG agencies, US citizens and indeed the nations and peoples of the world â€“ entities that all need to do a much better job sharing information vital to U.S. and international peace, prosperity and security.

Also in regards to choosing appropriate and useful names to describe our policy efforts, about a decade ago now I undertook a quixotic attempt to help end the use of the retrograde and counterproductive term "the post-Cold War era.â€ My suggestion was a U.S. foreign policy described by the term "Fair Peace." See this site for more detail on this suggestion: http://web.archive.org/web/...

Back to the specific subject at hand ... I do appreciate the term "OpenGov." As late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his 1998 book Secrecy:

"The 'what-ifs' are intriguing. What if the United States had recognized Soviet weakness earlier on and accordingly kept its own budget in order, so that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union a momentous economic aid program could have commenced? What if we had better calculated the forces of ethnicity so that we could have avoided going directly from the 'end' of the Cold War to a new Balkan War, leaving little attention and far fewer resources for the shattered Soviet empire? There it rests, with the one remaining large and positive possibility. Openness. East and West paid hideous costs for keeping matters of state closed to the people whom the states embodied ... A case can be made that ... secrecy is for losers. For people who don't know how important information really is. The Soviet Union realized this too late. Openness is now a singular, and singularly American, advantage. We put it in peril by poking along in the mode of an age now post. It is time to dismantle government secrecy, this most pervasive of Cold War-era regulations. It is time to begin building the supports for the era of openness that is already upon us."

However, I understand â€œopennessâ€ and â€œOpenGovâ€ more as means to the ends we are seeking, and not our actual goal. Harkening back to my earlier suggestion for a new â€œFair Peaceâ€ name for U.S. foreign policy in a new geo-political era, I would suggest that our new name to replace "Gov 2.0" specifically speak to what we hope to accomplish, not how we hope the means we intend to use.

Reprising yet updating Harry Truman's vision, I suggest the "Digital Fair Deal" as our new name and agenda. As Truman put it: "Every segment of our population and every individual has a right to expect from our Government a fair deal." The information age and its empowering digital technology makes engagement by every segment of our society and by every individual a much more achievable initiative, thereby making the policy goals of a fair deal much more feasible. A Digital Fair Deal would also speak to the U.S. Governmentâ€™s foreign policy agenda, or as Truman once put it: "What we envisage is a program of (international) development based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing."

Obviously this name change proposal goes well beyond the concept of "government," and undertakes to provide a outcome-focused slogan that typically would like come from some official, high level member of the new government. Yet substantially changing things, and expanding who has impact beyond traditional offical roles, is essentially what this sort of initiative is all about.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Joy Fulton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:34:43 -0000

If a new name is needed, maybe GLP? Government Leaps Forward, Great Leap Forward?
Similar to GDP and GNP, maybe it will satisfy the government's need for a more perfect acronym.

If a url is needed - for a government equivalent of Facebook so one could actually get to know one's leaders and civil servants directly from the source maybe these could be considered:
glp.gov
us.gov
new.gov
open.gov
agencies.gov
fed.gov
federal.gov

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Scott Stead — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:54:31 -0000

My initial thoughts were DigiGov, GoVii, GovRev2 etc. But I agree with the previous comment about putting a number on it -much like the processor in my Mac - by the time we name it/brand it, etc we'll be on to version 3. How about GovEvolution, Govolution, or how about we accept that Government like the Web is still just the government - it's just evolving, changing. There is no Web 2.0. There is no Web 3.0 - there is just the web. We may be moving toward Digital Governance but its all the same - just in a new format - with new input/output methods. The rebranding of everything to reflect the technology wrapped around it seems a bit pointless. NextNewGov, Govvle, GovX, call it what you will - it's the same inefficient, bureaucratic hodgepodge it always was - just with shiny new toys and tools they're reluctant to use because OMG - if they really used Web 2.0 to the fullest it might offer some sort of transparency in their daily doings.

==RANT OVER==

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

MITS Engineering college — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:59:23 -0000

MITS Engineering College,Best Institute in Orissa, India

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

JB — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:59:22 -0000

How about 'theUS.gov". (Pronounced thee-us) Obviously, US has a double meaning, symbolizing both the United States and the people taking ownership of it while keeping the 'one-ness' philosophy of 2.0.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

W. David Stephenson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:42:35 -0000

I really do think the approach needs something to distinguish it from past practices: not necessarily 2.0, because the specific technologies can and will change in the future, but definitely to mark a profound shift from the days when government was remote and gave us what it decided to give us, rather than being the true partnership that developments such as the Apps for Democracy contest, in which the public were the source not only of inspiration, but actual, functional services. Hence, WeGov

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Phil — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:36:09 -0000

I will give it another try. How about .gov or DotGov, GovDotGov?

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Geoff Livingston — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:20:17 -0000

I call it government. It's nice that the toolset makes it easier, but it's the same animal.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Andrea Baker — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:06:57 -0000

Hello. Isn't it obvious, we gotta call it "SkyNet". This is the only way John Connor can have his revolution.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Bud Higgins — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:58:46 -0000

How about GoverNet. i really want the NWC mug (I'm a grad - 2006)
Trying for second place.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Steve Ressler — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:18:53 -0000

GovLoop gets my vote as I run a social network to connecting the gov't community called GovLoop.com. :)

A good debate but I agree with Mark's earlier post...people need to stop talking and start doing. There are a lot of easy wins to improve government using Gov 2.0 (or whatever) tools/approaches. The greatest value of most of these projects is that they are quick and cheap rather than the typical 5-year, $100 million government project.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

akispicer — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:17:22 -0000

i say LEAVE IT "2.0"...the 2.0 language isn't for us social savvy smarties in the room who "get it" - its for the rest of the planet who don't get it. And those people are the ones we're trying to evangelize. Evangelize with simple, clear language so they stop fearing us (and tech change) and start "getting it". "Quantum Government" and "Semantic Web" is just not user friendly language for evangelizing change, ya'll.

Leave Government 2.0 alone!

*though i do like "OpenGov", too.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Rene Moffatt — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:41:04 -0000

Speaking in generalities:

Let's say government is top down and 2.0 is bottom up (grassroots, etc) But a well run government listens to its people, allows for open dialogue, and if government is wise, then make an informed decision about policy etc... in essence acting like a true democracy.

trueGOV

truGOV

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Jeff Geiser — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:25:17 -0000

My choice: my.gov

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Rob — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:35:37 -0000

i love the acronym for "user generated government" -- potentially spot-on.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Joe Boutte — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:03:11 -0000

I thought that e-Government was a very useful term, but it is limiting. I like most of the names here, but none of the names will change government or create results. Suppose that we get Washington and all the brain power focused on efficient government (could be e-Government). The bottom line is that we need solutions and not buzzwords. If any of the names cause increased interest and problem-solving, I'm all for it.

Re: Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please

Julie Baker — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:00:20 -0000

Still more

EngageGov
EngageUS
ConnectUS
GovLink
GovConnect
GovBook
GovLoop