ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4807 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4808 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4809 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4810 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4811 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4812 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4813 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4814 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4815 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
13 February 2009 | 4816 Visits | Rating: 5 (maximum:5)
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Sounds like an interesting project, Michael, although from reading your description I'm not quite clear how you defined the field, i.e. what kind of public deliberation or problem-solving exercises did the study encompass?
Structuring unstructured data
What struck me was that you seemed to be re-creating a deliberation exercise among a sort of topical community (the Java websphere) as it had been 'discussing' your chosen problem over an extended time period, rather than working with, or setting up, a 'real' group. I think this approach has wide applicability in the eParticipation field, where there are a lot of very poorly connected arenas for discussion, most of which are not integrated into policy-making processes at all. Turning that 'unstructured data' into the sort of structured data that could inform decision-making is something I see as a crucial challenge.
Re: comuno - what kind of deliberation?
Simon, thank you for prompting clarification about defining the field. The comuno case was interested in tracking internet-enabled processes of opinion-forming and mobilization regarding the fundamental changes in the governance of the Java software standard. The focus was on players involved in application server software, because it was in this context where calls to open-up Java and its governance surfaced prominently. Therefore, the field includes all players with an interest or stake in the evolution of Java application server software. How did we define who had an interest, i.e. who was a stakeholder or “key participantâ€? Stakeholders were those who featured most prominently across the set of web pages retrieved through the initial Google search for “open source Javaâ€. This approach is equivalent to self-selection in participation models, where – if unmediated – the most vocal groups dominate. The approach appears feasible given that we were interested in how the discourse on opening Java and its governance developed on the internet. The stakeholders included in the case were, for example, Java owner Sun, opensource newcomers JBoss and Lutris, incumbent firms BEA and IBM, as well as opensource groups such as the Apache Software Foundation and the Open-Source Initiative. While opensource-skeptical incumbents were prominently represented, opensource-skeptical Java programmers remained marginal. One conclusion could be that this group was therefore unable to influence deliberation and negotiation about the Java governance model.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library
Using *existing* platforms to inform formal policy-making
You`re absolutely right.. the idea was to track *existing* public deliberations across a broad range of internet platforms - not to create a platform and wait for users to make policy. There are already platforms and processes of solving collective problems (i.e. of political work). For us, the challenge is to utilize the power of the social web for informing (and legitimating) more formal policy-making processes.
UPDATE 26-APR-09
DOWNLOAD LINK: Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: Evidence from the evolution of Java governance
ePractice Library