I think there are two issues here – the creation and first use of the data, and publishing the data.

I think I’ve covered the first issue. On the second one: I published the EPSB dataset, but it would have gone up on the data catalogue regardless. I don’t think EPSB was “entrusting” me to publish the data, they simply said I could share it. And now that it it’s in the catalogue it doesn’t matter – anyone can share it.

However, the dataset referred to in this article was explicitly destined for the CoE OpenData site. The question isn’t whether or not indiduals should partner with goevernment in dissemination of the dataset. The question is whether or not it should be published by a privat individual when the destination was the CoE site.

As I stated, I don’t think you did anything wrong. I think EPSB needs to have a firm policy in place for the future. They won’t always be in a relationship with one individual. Down the road you may not be around. Should they then entrust datasets to me to publish? Why not just publish to the site the data is destined for with the understanding that you may also host it once it is generally released.

Again, it is a matter of perception.

The only thing I have an issue with is this: I think the private sector (whether individuals or organizations) is vitally important here, both for pushing for the data AND for helping to create, distribute, and improve it.

It’s kind of like a public-private partnership, only less formal and involving less risk.

Time for Daddy to jump into the sandbox and keep the kiddies from getting sand in each others’ eyes.

This may seem extremely odd to Mack and Walter, both of whom know me and are aware of propensity for one-sided and hard-nosed opinions, but I agree with EVERYONE in this debate. Yes, Mack there is a Santa Claus.

I don’t have the wisdom of Solomon, but I think, even in the age of participation, we can still split the baby.

We, those of us in the know, are appreciative of all the work Mack has done in the furtherance of Open Data in the City of Edmonton. Even those of us who regularly disagree with his position on most matters in the city agree on the point that he goes above and beyond in his desire to move the city towards open communication.

EPSB could do no better than accept his offer of help. From what I have read here I conclude that Mack did nothing wrong. He helped EPSB put their data into a usable format. He then sought permission to host the compiled and formatted data on ShareEdmonton. Upon receiving clearance he hosted it and blogged about it.

So far nothing Mack did is wrong, immoral or illegal. (Biting my tongue regarding budget websites here )….

So where is the problem? I think we all know, and I am certain Jeremy knows. I am certain Jeremy has learned a valuable lesson from this debate.

The problem lies with EPSB granting a private citizen permission to post and blog about Data which, while not of a sensitive nature in the least, should have been rolled out where it belonged, on the CoE site. The data was destined for the CoE site as part of the Open Data program. This is where it should have appeared first. After it was rolled out in the proper forum I see absolutely no problem with, THEN, allowing Mack to also host it on ShareEdmonton and blog about it to his heart’s content.

By allowing a single private citizen who, admittedly, is a competitor with many of other private citizens in their business dealings, opens the EPSB and, vicariously through EPSB, the Minister of Education up to accusations of favouritism.

Clearly, after reading Jeremy’s last comment, EPSB has learned something from all of this. Hopefully, in the future, they will continue to use the expertise of our participation experts without forgetting that the community is smaller than it seems, and perception means everything!

I think we can all agree mistakes were made here. Now shake hands and make nice.

However, this being our first foray into open data, we were please to be able to work with Mack on a request for data for ShareEdmonton.

Respecting this partnership, and the work Mack put into helping us, we made the data available to him as soon as it was finalized (Thursday). The CoE folks posted it Friday. It would have been sooner (in fact, probably Thursday as well), but our contact at the City had been away and we weren’t able to connect until then.

Here are some lessons I’m taking away from the whole experience, and that others will hopefully find useful too:

1 – get advice from people who will actually use the data before releasing it. Chances are, the business owners of the data don’t use it the same way that the wider community will. Mack’s perspectives helped us shape the information and get it ready for release.

2 – be prepared to revisit what you’re offering. Already, we’ve had requests about re-shaping what we’ve got, adding details, re-naming a few things. I see this as an ongoing part of the process, and it should be expected.

3 – get involved with the larger initiative. Hosting the data on the City’s catalogue aligns us with the open data initiative, makes the information available to a larger audience, and allows us to follow the City’s existing terms of use.

I’d be interested to hear any other perspectives/lessons learned from public-sector organizations.

I’ve seen silos get in the way of government initiatives and fully support public-private partnerships, so I’d like to learn more. Are there lessons learned here that can benefit the rest of the OpenGov community?

And though there have been questions raised about the timing of the data going up on the catalogue, I want to make it clear that this was not an afterthought.

From the beginning of our plans to get involved in open data, City staff have worked with EPSB to make the data available there, so that we could be part of the larger initiative, rather than in our own silo.

Looking forward to seeing other organizations around the city start to do the same…

I agree Valerie, this discussion was an interesting learning experience on many levels. I feel like I can always learn and this was great from that point of view. Did I communicate perfectly? As usual far from it, I’m imperfect. That said, we all choose how we interpret things based on what is most important to us and that’s nothing that other communicators can control. For example, I could interpret your comments any number of ways, I choose to think you are attempting to help in your own way and I thank-you for that.

Also, it’s terrific that the data is now on the CoE website, that was great of the IT Branch to pick up on the work Mack, Jeremy and Paul did and turn it around so quickly.

Until yesterday, there was no data from EPSB publicly available in an easily-consumable form. Now creative professionals can access that data and do with it whatever they like. Until next week, it’s accessible from the link I have provided. After that, it’ll be accessible within the data catalogue.

How did we get there? EPSB got interested in open data. As a passionate supporter of open data, I reached out to EPSB and offered to help. Over the course of a couple weeks, we worked together to create the data set (with EPSB doing the bulk of the work, of course).

I was excited about the data, and I still am. I asked if I could post about it, and EPSB said yes.

There are no ads on this blog. There are no ads on ShareEdmonton. The only benefit I received here, was the ability to make this blog post. And given the nature of this comment thread, I’m not sure it’s fair to call that a benefit.

If you want to complain about optics, why not challenge the City on the iPhone app they are launching? They worked with a partner, who got access to data and APIs before anyone else. In exchange, that partner gets first crack at things.

I don’t see the harm in that. I think that’s realistically how things are going to get done.

I think what Walter is highlighting is that the process or the policy needs to be considered.

I don’t know Mack, and I am sure he put a lot of work into helping and he is a great guy, but that isn’t the point – in other words, it isn’t about personality – it isn’t personal.

Years will come and go and the players will change… what will the process be in the future? What precedent is being set today?

A person’s personality or level of commitment can not be used to determine policy. If we start that, where does it end? how nice of a person? how committed? how much work? Do we have an open competition to see who is the nicest, most dedicated and therefore gets any “perks” from helping?

Another “P” to consider is perception. What does this look like to the Average Joe? Does he know what kind of work Mack put in? how nice he is? how dedicated? or does Average Joe see a government body giving preferential treatment to a private citizen? There is a difference between having access to the information while you are assisting and publishing it on a private website.

Disclaimer: I don’t know Mack, I have met Walter and exchanged maybe two sentences with him. I am not in any way involved or associated with open data nor do I make money from it in any way. But I am a stickler for process, when necessary.

You’re coming back like its a personal attack, thus obscuring the real issue.

Example:
“Let’s discuss process”
“Why do you hate me?”