Government Code Collaborative Falls Short

Tom Adelstein writes "This story starts off singing the praises of the Government Open Code Collaborative, then reminds the reader: you discover that it has built one more bureaucracy to oversee its existing bureaucracy, with oversight over the new bureaucracy. Have you ever heard the cliche about prisoners running the asylum? Well, this gated and restrictive open-source government repository fits."

Comments

Getting it backwards

[physicsphairy]

The point is not to infuse bureaucracy into open source, it is to use open source in government.

The govenrnment does not need to do more iota more than this: make it's code open source; be receptive to using open source and accepting open source contributions.

We the open source community get the fruits what we paid tax dollars to produce, and the government doesn't waste money on redundant proprietary code. Everybody wins. Adding bureaucracy to something that is clearly a partnership with the community is just dumb.

Mccarthy nonsense

[SubtleNuance]

then reminds the reader: you discover that it has built one more bureaucracy to oversee its existing bureaucracy, with oversight over the new bureaucracy. Have you ever heard the cliche about prisoners running the asylum?

Everyone who works in a Fortune 1000 company, please raise your hand. Anyone who thinks that their employer COULDNT be any more bureauratic please raise their hand.

Implying Governments are INHERENTLY bureaucratic is a myth, conversly, arguing that a PRIVATE firm (of any notable size) isnt just as complex is silly. The Short: All big systems are complex and byzantine. /raises hand.

Re:Mccarthy nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently his insight IS amazing, since most people keep assuming that bureaucracy is always present in government and never in big business, ignoring the bureacracy they might face even in quite small companies for anything that requires transparency and oversight, like filing expense claims...

Government is often more bueraucratic, but often because it HAS TO in order to meet basic criteria for democratic oversight and control. The larger a corporation the more of the similar oversight issues pop up there as well because it's necessary for the board to be able to maintain control.

Re:Mccarthy nonsense

[qbzzt]

Implying Governments are INHERENTLY bureaucratic is a myth, conversly, arguing that a PRIVATE firm (of any notable size) isnt just as complex is silly.

First, very few private firms are the size of even a state government.

Second, businesses are motivated to be more efficient. If you're a CEO and you slash beaurocracy effectively (that is, cut expenses without cutting value), you lower expenses and raise profits. That's supposed to result in your $tock option$ being more valuable.

If you are a politician and you cut beaurocracy, you save tax payer money. You also generate bad publicity. All of those former government workers that are now out of a job probably won't like you. They know enough to highlight the negative effects of the cut, even if the positive effects outweigh it. So improving efficiency might actually be bad for your re-election bid.

Re:Mccarthy nonsense

[Coryoth]

If you're a CEO and you slash beaurocracy effectively (that is, cut expenses without cutting value), you lower expenses and raise profits. That's supposed to result in your $tock option$ being more valuable. ... And presumably you get a huge bonus to.

So if you're a CEO and you're smart, when the going is good you pad the company out with layers and layers of middle management so that when the going gets tough you can "cut the fat", manage to impressively raise profits for the quarter, and get your huge bonus.

Jedidiah.

oh, stop complaining

[jeif1k]

Yes, there are only five pieces of software. But they are under an open source license and you can download them. That's all as it should be.

Yes, you have to go through paperwork in order to participate in the project. So what? Every open source effort has some gatekeepers that decide who can participate and what they can contribute. When it comes to government, you can't have a Linux or Theo just making decisions, you actually have to have paperwork, because we have open government that needs to be transparent, not a monarchy. See the connection? Democracy, openness, record keeping? Records and paperwork are the price we pay for openness. In most cases, that paperwork is not just a good idea, it is required because we, the people, passed laws to require it.

GOCC probably will not succeed in its current form. But people are at least interested and trying and that's a good thing. If you have good ideas and are interested, I'm sure you could find a way to participate.

Instead, of course, you are just using this effort as a soapbox to complain and whine. Ditto for Tom Adelstein, the author of the LJ piece, which is also full of tirades and platitudes, but empty of ideas and solutions.

The open source movements needs contributors, not whiners. If have ideas for how to improve GOCC or build something similar with less bureaucracy, present them. Even better, get involved in the project: talk to your local government, run for office, get something on the ballot, etc. Government really is no different from an open source project: things only change if you contribute. Whining and complaining will just piss people off, and if there is too much of it, you endanger the entire project.

Good idea, bad implementation...

[IO ERROR]

...which is typical of government. Or any large bureaucracy for that matter.

The whole idea behind open source is "open," and that's the part GOCC lacks. Nobody can contribute to it without significant restrictions like accepting liability for the code. Open source has NO WARRANTY for a reason. You want a warranty or technical support, you buy it. In addition they have provided no way to build a community around their offerings.

GOCC is virtually unchanged from when I looked at it six months ago, and I wouldn't be too surprised if everybody just kind of ignored it.

Re:Government and Sharing Software

[Russ Nelson]

You could do what Keith Packard did when he went to work for HP's Cambridge Research Lab: he said up-front "I will only work for you if all my code is open source."
-russ

You say you've worked in the public sector?

[Safety Cap]

It sucks, but restrictive laws are necessary to avoid corruption.

Bzzzt! If that were the case, then there would be no corruption.

Let me quote from an exchange from a hearing on Texas' SB 1579 (the Open-Source bill):

Sen. Carona: ~ Again, I don't understand why you all are so threatened by [the bill], but from a careful look at the lobbyists in this room that are representing Microsoft, and all of you here representing proprietary software companies which -- let's face it, that's where the big money is, it's not in Open Source it's in proprietary -- it's rather transparent as to why [the senators who are against the bill] all feel so threatened by this language [of the bill].

All elected officials care about is getting reelected. To do that takes cash and guess where that comes from?

Re:You say you've worked in the public sector?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> It sucks, but restrictive laws are necessary to avoid corruption.
> Bzzzt! If that were the case, then there would be no corruption.

You assume the world is exact like Computing Science. Well, it's not. Laws exist and people deliberately ignore them (heck, some will even disobey a law just because it exists!)

Good people follow the laws and this hampers their good intentions. Bad people try to circumvent restrictive laws and that is why corruption exists.

> Let me quote from an exchange from a hearing on Texas' SB 1579 (the Open-Source bill):
Sen. Carona: ~ Again, I don't understand why you all are so threatened by [the bill], but from a careful look at the lobbyists in this room that are representing Microsoft, and all of you here representing proprietary software companies which -- let's face it, that's where the big money is, it's not in Open Source it's in proprietary -- it's rather transparent as to why [the senators who are against the bill] all feel so threatened by this language [of the bill].

In fact, lobbies happens at many levels; for instance, the government must supply a certain amount of training and organisation to match the investments private businesses do to promote proprietary standards, which would damage the public interest in the long run. These investments are also a kind of lobbying, only done at lower administrative levels. And, voilà, here's a reason for needed bureaucracy.

> All elected officials care about is getting reelected. To do that takes cash and guess where that comes from?

True; but elected dudes have to follow politically-defined agendas. In my country, the winds have changed, and free software is in, while closed proprietary is out. In fact, I'm trying to be rational and use proprietary software where it does better than open alternatives, using free software in all cases where possible, since it is cheaper and has more strategic value. But there are rabid guys who would simply prohibit the use of proprietary software in our government.