Eight years since Portland, Oregon passed the nation’s first open data policy, open data advocates are now beginning to shift... View ArticleContinue reading
While cities around the nation are “geeking” their way to excellence, we on the Sunlight’s Local Team track the passage of open data policies. But how effective are the policies these cities are passing?Continue reading
The 2014 updated plan, with removed datasets, mysterious additions, and zero explanation for overdue datasets has left us with updated questions.Continue reading
Providing open data comes with challenges. How can governments thoughtfully approach safeguarding sensitive information?Continue reading
On March 11, Pittsburgh joined the growing number of cities who have adopted open data policies across the United States. So, how does Pittsburgh’s open data policy stack up to the other policies already out there?Continue reading
Steve Spiker and Eddie Tejeda (open data policy organizers) sharing OpenOakland’s work at East Bay Mini Maker Faire. Oakland passed an open data law earlier this month (October 15, 2013) that was generated by the people and for the people. Open Oakland captain Steve Spiker (Spike) gathered the Open Oakland and broader open government community to draft and chat the best open data policy for Oakland. Spike and Open Oakland, in addition to garnering support for the open data policy, cultivated the policy from start to finish through drafting, public comments, a call to experts, and [teleconferenced] public meetings. Open Oakland serves as an excellent example of the community's role in generating open data policy, and their public input process is an exemplar route to incorporating public perspectives into policy. The Sunlight Foundation's Guideline to incorporating public perspective into policy implementation reads as follows:
Implementing the details of an open data policy will benefit from public participation. Open data policies not only have effects government-wide, which will require consideration, but also have consequences for a variety of stakeholder groups outside of the government. Allowing these groups to participate in the decision-making process (and make real contributions) can have great benefits for policy creation and execution. Stakeholders and experts can bring to the table valuable new perspectives that highlight challenges or opportunities that might not otherwise be obvious. Formal mechanisms for collaboration can include hearings, draft proposals open for public comment and contribution, and online resources like wikis and email lists.Below we have outlined Oakland's public input process and how it is part of a growing trend to openly include community perspective, desires, and concerns into open data policy. Continue reading
In preparation for the revamping of our Open Data Policy Guidelines, we reviewed all twenty-three of the current local (city, county and state) open data policies on the books since their debut in 2006. These “open data policies” ranged in form from government administrative memos ordering the release of “high-value” datasets to legislation calling for open data policy planning to the newest member of the open data policy family, South Bend, Indiana’s executive order. Our main takeaway: There has been a lot of copying and pasting amongst policies, confusion on common open data terminology, and missed opportunities for information disclosure, but best practices are emerging.
Copying and pasting boilerplate legislative language is as old as law itself. In fact, legal precedent is built on throwbacks, edits, and remixes. The modern day copying and pasting feature has served as a technological blessing in legal matters that require a high level of repetition, such as producing demand letters for common legal claims, or, for one of Sunlight’s favorite exercises of individual rights, completing a public records or freedom of information request. However, when copying and pasting enters more nuanced areas of law, such as contract or legislation drafting, significant complications can arise. Without the proper edits or engaged collaborative thinking required in policy drafting, the ever tempting copy/paste model falls short. Below we explore just how borrowed open data legislative language thus far has been and examples of where it’s been the least helpful.Continue reading
The first question most open data advocates hear is, “Why?” Whether you’re trying to make the case within government or coming in from the outside, many, many advocates in our space spend a lot of time justifying open data’s potential instead of playing with its possibilities. We crowdsourced ideas that can help answer questions and move the conversation along.Continue reading
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced the signing of an open data policy executive order in conjunction with his compelling talk at the 2013 Code for America Summit. In nonchalant cadence, the mayor announced his support for complete information disclosure by declaring, "It's data, man." What's more is this was one of three open data policies signed into law over the last week, the others being California’s West Sacramento and Oakland policies. (For the complete view, see our map of growing policies here.)
The Louisville policy is unique in that hits many of the Sunlight Foundation's Open Data Policy Guidelines rarely touched upon by others, including a strong "open by default" provision, and, like South Bend, IN, roots its basis for affecting the transparency of information disclosure firmly in legal precedent, in this case, the Kentucky Open Meetings and Open Records Act. Doing so further empowers it's "open by default" status. The Louisville policy also provides a clear series of checks and balances to insure information is disclosed by calling for (1) the creation of a comprehensive inventory supported by the letter of the law itself (which we have only seen in the 2013 U.S. federal policy thus far — and which has not yet been implemented), (2) a yearly open data report, and (3) built-in review of the policy itself for the ever-changing information and technology landscape ahead. We have broken out the significance and mechanics of Louisville's policy that support information disclosure further below.Continue reading
Earlier this month, we shared a crowdsourced collection of the top concerns data advocates have heard when they’ve raised an open data project with government officials at the federal, state, and local level, and we asked for you to share how you’ve responded. Dozens of you contributed to the project, sharing your thoughts on social media, our public Google doc, and even on the Open Data Stack Exchange, where 8 threads were opened to dive deeper into specific subjects.
Drawing from your input, our own experience, and existing materials from our peers at the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership and some data warriors from the UK, we’ve compiled a number of answers -- discussion points, if you will -- to help unpack and respond to some of the most commonly cited open data concerns. This mash-up of expertise is a work in progress, but we bet you’ll find it a useful conversation starter (or continuer) for your own data advocacy efforts.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll be sharing challenges and responses from our #WhyOpenData list that correspond to different themes. Today’s theme, Say What?, celebrates a grab bag of challenges.Continue reading