View source for Open-source governance

{{Short description|School of thought advocating free access to lawmaking for the people}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|Open source government|Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions{{!}}Open source software in government|Open government}}
{{Primary sources|date=June 2011}}
{{Governance|Models}}

'''Open-source governance''' (also known as '''open governance''' and '''open politics''') is a [[political philosophy]] which advocates the application of the philosophies of the [[open-source model|open-source]] and [[open-content]] movements to [[democracy|democratic]] principles to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a [[wiki]] document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry, employing their [[collective wisdom]] to benefit the decision-making process and improve democracy.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=450zYUjsPNQC&pg=PT56 Open-source democracy: how online communication is changing offline politics] by [[Douglas Rushkoff]], published by [[Demos (UK think tank)|Demos]]. Page 56 et al</ref>

Theories on how to constrain, limit or enable this participation vary.  Accordingly, there is no one dominant theory of how to go about authoring legislation with this approach. There are a wide array of projects and movements which are working on building open-source governance systems.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects|title=Related projects|access-date=2009-02-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180724025033/http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects|archive-date=2018-07-24|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Many [[Left-libertarianism|left-libertarian]] and [[radical center (politics)|radical centrist]] organizations around the globe have begun advocating open-source governance and its related political ideas as a reformist alternative to current governance systems. Often, these groups have their origins in [[decentralization|decentralized]] structures such as the Internet and place particular importance on the need for anonymity to protect an individual's right to free speech in democratic systems. Opinions vary, however, not least because the principles behind open-source government are still very loosely defined.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.academia.edu/1841026|title=Upholding online anonymity in Internet governance: Affordances, ethical frameworks, and regulatory practices|last1=Bodle|first1=Robert|year=2011 }}</ref>

== Applications of the principles ==

In practice, several applications have evolved and been used by democratic institutions:<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=wwxKluxdL-kC&pg=PT369 Service-oriented architecture governance for the services driven enterprise]; Eric A. Marks</ref>
*[[Open-government]] mechanisms including those for public participation and engagement, such as the use of [[IdeaScale]], [[Google Moderator]], [[Semantic MediaWiki]], GitHub, and other software by actual ruling governments – these mechanisms are well-developed, especially in the UK and the US,<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=gfzzrnHy5cQC&pg=PA241 Knowledge governance: processes and perspectives]; Snejina Michailova, [[Nicolai J. Foss]], [[Oxford University Press]]. Page 241 et al</ref> or by civil society and citizens directly for example, Opengovpioneers<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://opengovpioneers.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page|title=Open Government Pioneer Project|website=opengovpioneers.miraheze.org|language=en|access-date=2017-05-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Open Government Partnership Scottish Action Plan - gov.scot|url=https://www.gov.scot/publications/open-government-partnership-scottish-action-plan/pages/2/|access-date=2020-12-29|website=www.gov.scot}}</ref> in the UK, and the Scottish Nature Finance Pioneers<ref>{{Cite web |title=Scottish Nature Finance Pioneers – Grow, Restore, Prosper |url=https://www.nature.scot/doc/scottish-nature-finance-pioneers-grow-restore-prosper |access-date=2023-04-09 |website=NatureScot |language=en}}</ref> in Scotland.
*[[Open politics|Open-politics]] [[web forum|forums]] and [[wiki]]s, where political issues and arguments can be debated, either within or between political party constraints, taking three distinct forms:
**Political-party-platform development, in which ideas are solicited from anyone or almost anyone and openly discussed to a point but the ranking and devotion of resources to developing ideas is reserved to party members or supporters. A variant is the non-partisan think-tank or citizen-advocacy group-platform development as has become common in Canada, for example the [[Dominion Institute]] policywiki.<ref>[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/as-one-experiment-ends-a-new-one-begins-for-policy-wiki/article654853/  As one experiment ends, a new one begins for Policy Wiki] [[The Globe and Mail]] / [[Dominion Institute]] policywiki</ref>
**[[Citizen journalism]] forums obeying stricter rules to ensure equal power relationships than is typically the case in blogs, strictly designed to balance libel and [[free speech]] laws for a local jurisdiction (following laws strictly is part of the open politics ideal).
**Open party mechanisms to actually govern and operate formal political parties without the usual insider politics and interest groups that historically have taken over such parties;  these experiments have been limited and typically take the form of parties run by referendums or online. An example of this is Italy's [[Five Star Movement]].
*In the [[California Assembly]], [[Crowdsourced legislation]] via a 'wiki bills' website is being initiated via an online wiki, with an introduction deadline of early February, 2015.<ref>(Jan 8, 2015) "[http://www.crescentavalleyweekly.com/news/01/08/2015/gatto-promotes-wiki-bill-project/ Gatto Promotes 'Wiki Bill' project]" ''Crescenta Valley Weekly'' '''6'''(19) p.1,8 accessdate=2015-01-14</ref> {{Update inline|date=August 2024}}
*Hybrid mechanisms which attempt to provide journalistic coverage, political platform development, political transparency, strategic advice, and critique of a ruling government of the same party all at the same time.  [[Dkosopedia]] is the best known example of this.

Some models are significantly more sophisticated than a plain wiki, incorporating semantic tags, levels of control or scoring to mediate disputes – however this always risks empowering a clique of moderators more than would be the case given their trust position within the democratic entity – a parallel to the common wiki problem of [[official vandalism]] by persons entrusted with power by owners or publishers (so-called "sysop vandalism" or "administrative censorship").

== Common and simultaneous policy ==

Some advocates of these approaches, by analogy to software code, argue{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}} for a "central codebase" in the form of a set of policies that are maintained in a public registry and that are ''infinitely reproducible''. "[[Distribution (business)|Distributions]]" of this policy-base are released (periodically or dynamically) for use in localities, which can apply "patches" to customize them for their own use.  Localities are also able to cease subscribing to the central policy-base and "fork" it or adopt someone else's policy-base. In effect, the government stems from emergent cooperation and self-correction among members of a community. As the policies are put into practice in a number of localities, problems and issues are identified and solved, and where appropriate communicated back to the core.

These goals for instance were cited often during the [[Green Party of Canada]]'s experiments with open-political-platform development.{{Citation needed|date=June 2017}}  As one of over a hundred national [[Green party]] entities worldwide and the ability to co-ordinate policy among provincial and municipal equivalents within Canada, it was in a good position to maintain just such a central repository of policy, despite being legally separate from those other entities.

== Difference from prior initiatives ==
Open-source governance differs from previous open-government initiatives in its broader emphasis on collaborative processes. After all...
{{cquote|...simply publishing snapshots of government information is not enough to make it open.|author=''[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People]''}}

==History==
The "Imagine Halifax" (IH) project was designed to create a citizens' forum for elections in [[Halifax Urban Area|Halifax, Nova Scotia]] in fall 2004.  Founded by Angela Bischoff, the widow of [[Tooker Gomberg]], a notable advocate of combining [[direct action]] with open politics methods, IH brought a few dozen activists together to compile a platform (using live meetings and email and seedwiki followup).  When it became clear that candidates could not all endorse all elements of the platform, it was then turned into questions for candidates in the election.  The best ideas from candidates were combined with the best from activists – the final scores reflected a combination of convergence and originality.  In contrast to most such questionnaires, it was easier for candidates to excel by contributing original thought than by simply agreeing.  One high scorer, [[Andrew Younger]], had not been involved with the project originally but was elected and appeared on TV with project leader [[Martin Willison]].  The project had not only changed its original goal from a partisan platform to a citizen questionnaire, but it had recruited a previously uninvolved candidate to its cause during the election.  A key output of this effort was a [[glossary]] of about 100 keywords relevant to municipal laws.

The 2004–05 [[Green Party of Canada#Internet innovation|Green Party of Canada Living Platform]] was a much more planned and designed effort at open politics.  As it prepared itself for an electoral breakthrough in the [[2004 Canadian federal election|2004 federal election]], the [[Green Party of Canada]] began to compile citizen, member and expert opinions in preparation of its platform.  During the election, it gathered input even from [[Internet troll]]s including supporters of other parties, with no major problems: [[anonymity]] was respected and, if they were within the terms of use, comments remained intact.  Despite, or perhaps because of, its early success, it was derailed by [[Jim Harris (politician)|Jim Harris]], the party's leader, when he discovered that it was a threat to his status as a [[party boss]].{{Citation needed|date=October 2014}} The Living Platform split off as another service entirely out of GPC control and eventually evolved into OpenPolitics.ca<ref>[http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/Decision_Making_Handout.pdf Decision Making Handout]</ref> and a service to promote wiki usage among citizens and  political groups.

The [[Liberal Party of Canada]] also attempted a deep policy renewal effort in conjunction with its leadership race in 2006.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://annemclellan.com/edmonton2_e.pdf |title=Liberal Party of Canada Renewal Commission, Notes from Task Force on Women Meeting |access-date=2011-04-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070802120336/http://annemclellan.com/edmonton2_e.pdf |archive-date=2007-08-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.liberal.ca/|title=Liberal Party of Canada}}</ref>  While candidates in that race, notably [[Carolyn Bennett]], [[Stéphane Dion]] and [[Michael Ignatieff]], all made efforts to facilitate web-threaded policy-driven conversations between supporters, all failed to create lateral relationships and thus also failed to contribute much to the policy renewal effort.

Numerous very different projects related to open-source governance collaborate under the umbrella of the [[Metagovernment]] project;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Active_projects|title=Active projects|access-date=2010-06-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170527210824/http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Active_projects|archive-date=2017-05-27|url-status=dead}}</ref> Metagovernment uses the term "collaborative governance",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_governance|title=Collaborative governance|access-date=2010-01-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803105700/http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_governance|archive-date=2017-08-03|url-status=dead}}</ref> most of which are building platforms of open-source governance.
:[[Aktivdemokrati]] is a [[Direct democracy|Direct democratic]] party, running for the parliament of Sweden<ref>[http://aktivdemokrati.se Aktivdemokrati] (Swedish)</ref>  Democracylab.org is a Seattle Washington [[nonprofit]] (501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, partnered with the Oregon 150 Project,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oregon150.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050507065908/http://www.oregon150.org/|url-status=usurped|archive-date=May 7, 2005|title=Oregon 150: Public Information|author=www.oregon150.org}}</ref> building an online public think tank in which the votes of users determines policy, seeking to connect the values people hold to their positions on issues and the policies they advocate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.democracylab.org|title=DemocracyLab}}</ref> Votorola is software for building consensus and reaching decisions on local, national and global levels.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht|title=Votorola}}</ref> The White House 2 was a project which crowdsourced the U.S. agenda, "imagining how the White House might work if it was run completely democratically by thousands of people on the internet." Wikicracy has developed a Mediawiki-based platform using most of Open politics criteria<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicracy|title=Wikicracy}}</ref> These [[grassroots]] efforts have been matched by government initiatives that seek similar goals. A more extensive [https://web.archive.org/web/20180724025033/http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects list of these and similar organizations] is available externally.

Future Melbourne is a wiki-based collaborative environment for developing Melbourne's 10-year plan. During public consultation periods, it enables the public to edit the plan with the same editing rights as city personnel and councilors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki|title=Future Melbourne Wiki}}</ref>

The New Zealand Police Act Review was a wiki used to solicit public commentary during the public consultation period of the acts review.<ref>[http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz/ New Zealand Police Act Review] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080410175829/http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz/ |date=2008-04-10 }}</ref>

At [[linux.conf.au]] on January 14, 2015, in [[Auckland]], [[New Zealand]], [[Australia]]n [[Audrey Lobo-Pulo]] presented ''[http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_3/Wednesday/Evaluating_Government_Policies_Using_Open_Source_Models.webm Evaluating Government Policies Using Open Source Models]'', agitating for government policy related knowledge, data and analysis to be freely available to everyone to use, modify and distribute without restriction {{mdash}} "a parallel universe where public policy development and analysis is a dynamic, collaborative effort between government and its citizens". Audrey reported that the motivation for her work was personal uncertainty about the nature and accuracy of models, estimates and assumptions used to prepare policies released with the 2014 Australian Federal Government Budget, and whether and to what extent their real world impact is assessed following implementation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_3/Wednesday/Evaluating_Government_Policies_Using_Open_Source_Models.webm|title=Evaluating Government Policies Using Open Source Models|author=Audrey Lobo-Pulo|access-date=15 January 2015}}</ref> A white paper on "Evaluating Government Policies using Open Source Models" was released on September 10, 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://phoensight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Phoensight-Evaluating-Government-Policies-using-Open-Source-Models-Sept-2015-1.pdf|title=Evaluating Government Policies using Open Source Models|work=Phoensight}}</ref>

== Open politics as a distinct theory {{anchor|Open politics}} ==

The open-politics theory, a narrow application of open-source governance, combines aspects of the [[free software]] and [[open-content]] movements, promoting [[decision-making]] methods claimed to be more open, less antagonistic, and more capable of determining what is in the [[public interest]] with respect to [[public policy]] issues.  It takes special care for instance to deal with equity differences, geographic constraints, defamation versus free political speech, accountability to persons affected by decisions, and the actual standing law and institutions of a jurisdiction.  There is also far more focus on compiling actual positions taken by real entities than developing theoretical "best" answers or "solutions".  One example, [http://discoursedb.org DiscourseDB], simply lists articles pro and con a given position without organizing their argument or evidence in any way.

While some interpret it as an example of "open-source politics", open politics is not a top–down theory but a set of best practices from [[citizen journalism]], [[participatory democracy]] and [[deliberative democracy]], informed by [[e-democracy]] and [[netroots]] experiments, applying argumentation framework for issue-based argument as they evolved in academic and military use through the 1980s to present.  Some variants of it draw on the theory of [[scientific method]] and [[market method]]s, including [[prediction market]]s and [[anticipatory democracy]].

Its advocates often engage in legal lobbying and advocacy to directly change laws in the way of the broader application of the technology, e.g. opposing [[political libel]] cases in Canada, fighting [[libel chill]] generally, and calling for clarification of privacy and human rights law especially as they relate to citizen journalism.  They are less focused on tools although the [[semantic mediawiki]] and [[tikiwiki]] platforms seem to be generally favored above all others.

==See also==
{|width=100%
||
*[[Argument map]]
*[[Collaborative e-democracy|Collaborative E-democracy]]
*[[Collaborative governance|Collaborative Governance]]
*[[Collaborative innovation network|Collaborative Innovation Network]]
*[[DemocracyOS]]
*[[Direct democracy]]
*[[Sociocracy|Dynamic Governance]]
*[[E-democracy]]
||
*[[E-government]]
*[[E-participation]]
*[[Electronic voting]]
*[[Joinup collaboration platform]]
*[[Netroots]]
*[[LiquidFeedback]]
*[[Online participation]]
*[[Open content]]
||
*[[Open government data]]
*[[Open Government Initiative]]
*[[Open Voting Consortium]]
*[[Panarchy (political philosophy)|Panarchism]]
*[[Polycentric law]]
*[[Radical transparency]]
*[[Simultaneous policy]]
|}

== Citations ==
{{reflist|2}}

== Further reading ==
*[https://archive.org/details/LibreCultureMeditationsOnFreeCulture Libre Culture: Meditations on Free Culture.] Berry, D. M & Moss, G. (2008) ([https://books.google.com/books?id=KvV1YgEACAAJ at Google Books]). Canada: [https://books.google.com/books?id=alI8AQAAIAAJ&q=Pygmalion+Publishing+Books Pygmalion Books]. PDF
*[http://efficasync.blogspot.com/2007/07/programming-deliberative-direct.html Programming a direct-democracy], a 2007 article on Efficasync. A Method of Open-Source Self-Governance
*[[Us Now]] – A film project about the power of mass collaboration, government and the Internet.
*[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10753 Open Source Democracy] by Douglas Rushkoff, 2004
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20100511042543/http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-10-17/opinion/17450299_1_self-government-voter-turnout-health-care Power to the (wired) people] What's Wrong With Politics and Can Technology Do Anything To Fix It? by Mitchell Kapor, October 7, 2004
* Berry, D M.& Moss, Giles (2006). Free and Open-Source Software: Opening and Democratising e-Government's Black Box. [http://www.iospress.nl/loadtop/load.php?isbn=15701255 Information Polity] Volume 11. (1). pp.&nbsp;21–34
*[[Smari McCarthy]]'s work on the [https://web.archive.org/web/20131005020709/http://globalswadeshi.ning.com/forum/topics/2097821:Topic:521 Shadow Parliament Project] and [[Citizens Foundation]]

{{Open navbox}}

[[Category:Activism]]
[[Category:Community organizing]]
[[Category:Politics and technology]]
[[Category:Freedom of information]]
[[Category:Government services portals]]
[[Category:Open data]]
[[Category:Free culture movement]]
[[Category:Open government]]
[[Category:Open-source movement]]