From 10083ad887f622a5e97cc83a0d3fc8a2cf9f40e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:22:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 01/10] Added link to AUAS in authors --- AUTHORS.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/AUTHORS.md b/AUTHORS.md index f2a7fae..a01649e 100644 --- a/AUTHORS.md +++ b/AUTHORS.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # Authors -Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), Faculty of Digital Media and Creative Industries, Lectorate of Play & Civic Media +Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), Faculty of Digital Media and Creative Industries, [Lectorate of Play and Civic Media](https://www.amsterdamuas.com/create-it/shared-content/research-groups/play-and-civic-media/play-and-civic-media.html) * Martijn De Waal @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Gemeente Amsterdam, Office of CTO * Tamas Erkelens * Mark van der Net -Individual Contributors +Individual contributors * Claus Mullie From e7816857b4e3a1a6ede304263c52ccbdb7478f71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:17:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 02/10] General proofreading (including bonfire of the ampersands) --- index.md | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- workshops/amsterdam.md | 2 +- workshops/bucurest.md | 4 +- 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.md b/index.md index 33045d8..ba7a2e0 100644 --- a/index.md +++ b/index.md @@ -6,17 +6,15 @@ Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the publ This project aims to further develop the concept of Public Code. How should we understand Public Code, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code? -In a [series of workshops](workshops/index.md), we want to build a network of collaborators to identify directions for the development of public code and set up research & development projects and grant applications. +In a [series of workshops](workshops/index.md), we want to build a network of collaborators to identify directions for the development of public code and set up research and development projects and grant applications. ## Introduction -«Smart Cities? Public Code!» is a collaboration between the City of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and Vurb.Agency. +«Smart Cities? Public Code!» is a collaboration between the City of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) and Vurb.Agency. -This project aims to contribute to the transition from proprietary smart city software to the design & employment of ‘public software’ that can be deployed by cities in their operational and policy processes in order to better safeguard public values. +This project aims to contribute to the transition from proprietary smart city software to the design and employment of ‘public software’ that can be deployed by cities in their operational and policy processes in order to better safeguard public values. -With the advance of smart city technologies software deployed by municipalities can no longer be understood as just a productivity tool. -The mechanics and algorithms operative in the software and the data it collects have become key elements in the execution of urban policy and have started to become a resource for decision-making processes. -That means that transparency and data-ownership are becoming important public values in software deployment. +With the advance of smart city technologies, software deployed by municipalities can no longer be understood as just a productivity tool. The mechanics and algorithms operative in the software and the data it collects have become key elements in the execution of urban policy and have started to become a resource for decision-making processes. That means that transparency and data-ownership are becoming important public values in software deployment. Most proprietary software systems that cities are currently using in their operations do not fulfill these requirements. Therefore a transition is needed to the deployment of what we call public software. @@ -25,68 +23,68 @@ For creative industries players such as developers and creative agencies, it is This project addresses these knowledge gaps through three workshops in which the most important issues for this transition will be identified, leading to a Guide for the Deployment of Public Software as well as a research agenda and an international network of stakeholders. -## Public Software +## Public software -Public Software is type of software built to operate with and as public infrastructure. +Public software is type of software built to operate with and as public infrastructure. It is designed to be as transparent, legible, and accessible as possible within its operating regulatory framework. -Public Software is almost always developed using Open Source methodologies, where all the code is freely human readable and not under restrictive licensing. -Decisions made by heuristics, algorithms, or machine learning within the code can be explored and understood by anyone. + +Public software is almost always developed using open source methodologies, where all the code is freely human readable and not under restrictive licensing. +Decisions made by heuristics, algorithms or machine learning within the code can be explored and understood by anyone. + Any output is available as open data or public domain content whenever possible within privacy constraints. Public software is meant to be freely available to download and run in any municipality around the globe. + Cities, NGOs, and private agencies can create new business models by charging fees to help develop, install, configure and maintain running versions of Public Software, but they cannot charge for the software itself which is free and openly available. ## This project -The model of the Smart City has dominated the discourse around municipal engagement with digital infrastructure for over a decade, but we are approaching a larger shift in the relation between software code and policy code. +The model of the smart city has dominated the discourse around municipal engagement with digital infrastructure for over a decade, but we are approaching a larger shift in the relation between software code and policy code. As more cities deploy software to manage their core functions, the difference between binary code and policy code begins to disappear. -Currently, software procurement and development is mostly still approached like one might order some custom furniture for a municipal building. -As a result, the initial round of engagements with digital infrastructure, contacted under the rubric of Smart Cities, were often onerous relationships with enterprise software corporations. +Currently, software procurement and development is mostly still approached like one might order some custom furniture for a municipal building. As a result, the initial round of engagements with digital infrastructure, contracted under the rubric of Smart Cities, were often onerous relationships with enterprise software corporations. + These contracts often locked cities into long-term, expensive software systems which controlled access to the cities’ own data and decision-making processes. Often the very function of governance was outsourced to 3rd party providers, and city governments learned hard lessons about losing control of operations and knowledge that they thought was firmly under their own oversight. -Increasingly, cities are learning that commissioning the software that runs their internal functions is more like making decisions about zoning or taxation, some of the most political and important decisions a city can make. -We propose that this type of software be thought of similarly to other infrastructure that falls squarely in the remit of the city to produce and maintain: Public Software. + +Increasingly, cities are learning that commissioning the software that runs their internal functions is more like making decisions about zoning or taxation, some of the most political and important decisions a city can make. We propose that this type of software be thought of similarly to other infrastructure that falls squarely in the remit of the city to produce and maintain: public software. Cities like Amsterdam and Barcelona have already dedicated large budgets to tools, platforms, and policies around digital services for citizens and municipal governments. -Now, cities are entering a new wave of procurement of these core functional digital infrastructures. -Many of the major cities in the Netherlands and across Europe have decided to build internal groups working on digital infrastructure projects. -However, these cities are not yet leveraging the power of open development through collaboration and sharing of their products across municipalities. -There is still a lack of knowledge on how cities can organize a process of public software development. Specifically, cities lack the insights on how they can best learn from each other in this process as well as how they can best share code bases. Simulatenously, both cities and creative industries professionals wonder how they can build business models around public software development. - -This project aims to address these issues. -We want to form a network of stakeholders involved in the creation of public software. -With them we want to identify the main issues, opportunities and challenges for the deployment of public code. +Now, cities are entering a new wave of procurement of these core functional digital infrastructures. Many of the major cities in the Netherlands and across Europe have decided to build internal groups working on digital infrastructure projects. + +However, these cities are not yet leveraging the power of open development through collaboration and sharing of their products across municipalities. There is still a lack of knowledge on how cities can organize a process of public software development. Specifically, cities lack the insights on how they can best learn from each other in this process as well as how they can best share codebases. Simultaneously, both cities and creative industries professionals wonder how they can build business models around public software development. + +This project aims to address these issues. We want to form a network of stakeholders involved in the creation of public software. With them we want to identify the main issues, opportunities and challenges for the deployment of public code. + We want to do this by compiling a first edition of a Guide for the Deployment of Public Software that documents steps and issues involved in the deployment of public software. -This guide will be produced in co-creation sessions in three international workshop. -The discussions about the creation of this guide will also be used to draft a research agenda. -What steps need to be taken next in terms of research and development for the further propagation of public software? +This guide will be produced in co-creation sessions in three international workshop. The discussions about the creation of this guide will also be used to draft a research agenda. What steps need to be taken next in terms of research and development for the further propagation of public software? Through these workshops and its subsequent publication of the Guide and the Research Agenda we aim to connect research institutions, municipalities and higher level government policy makers and creative industry companies around this important theme and stimulate further cooperation in this field. -As such, the scope of this project is mainly an agenda-building one, that aims to identify main stakeholders, list the most important issues, build a research agenda and set-up a practical guide based on our knowledge so far. -## Relevance in relation to the Dutch national knowledge agenda +As such, the scope of this project is mainly an agenda-building one, that aims to identify main stakeholders, list the most important issues, build a research agenda and set up a practical guide based on our knowledge so far. + +## Relevance in relation to the [Dutch national research agenda](https://wetenschapsagenda.nl/national-science-agenda/?lang=en) This topic is relevant for various aspects of both the research and innovation agenda, as well as the smart culture roadmap. -### Roadmap & Agenda goals +### Roadmap and agenda goals -#### Design for Change - Towards Transition +#### Design for change - towards transition This project creates a knowledge network, a set of practical guidelines and a research agenda to bring about a transition from proprietary city software to public software. How can we migrate from the old system in which governments use proprietary software to a new system in which government software is developed in a public way? What would a process for the development and deployment of public software entail? The proposed ‘Guide for the Deployment of Public Software’ gives a first answer to these questions, while the knowledge network will address broader themes and research questions for follow-up research and development. -#### Value Creation - Business models for Creative Professionals +#### Value creation - business models for creative professionals One aspect of the shift from proprietary to public software is that new business models need to be developed around the development and deployment of public software. This will be one of the central issues to be discussed at the workshops. In a broader sense, this project is about the organization of public value creation through new practices of public software deployment, looking for alternatives to existing proprietary systems. -#### Roadmap Smart Culture - Smart Cities & Societies +#### Roadmap smart culture - smart cities and societies In the roadmap smart culture, the theme of smart cities is addressed in relation to the development of digital platforms. -This project addresses the question of how public values can be safeguarded in the deployment of city software & platforms, through a public software approach. +This project addresses the question of how public values can be safeguarded in the deployment of city software and platforms, through a public software approach. -## Network, Relevant Questions & Knowledge Gaps +## Network, relevant questions and knowledge gaps The underlying questions and knowledge gaps for this project have been identified by various parties that are part of this consortium as well as actors in their networks. In the first place, there are the fore-runner cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona. @@ -108,13 +106,13 @@ There is a need for market places, consultancy on productization, as well as gui Questions that need to be addressed are: How can cities collaboratively build digital infrastructure using agile continuous delivery techniques that have enabled massive software products in major cloud software enterprises? How can smaller municipalities most easily deploy software developed by this network? How can third parties, such as companies and public agencies, participate most productively in this development effort, both as producers and implementers of larger municipal public digital projects? -In this project, Vurb, City of Amsterdam, and HvA are working to identify the friction points in both the development of these large projects and their deployment across smaller municipalities. +In this project, Vurb, City of Amsterdam, and AUAS are working to identify the friction points in both the development of these large projects and their deployment across smaller municipalities. We are seeing this shift from proprietary to public development, but what do the business models look like and how do municipalities begin or grow these ecosystems? As a larger collection of public digital infrastructural tools is developed, creative and technical industries will need guidance on how to participate in new business models around providing value as implementers of instances of these tools and platforms as services. -## How does it contribute to the Dutch topsector Creative Industries +## How does it contribute to the [Dutch creative industries topsector ](https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/innovatief-ondernemen/topsectoren/topsector-creatieve-industrie) This project will feature creative industries based in Amsterdam at the center of an international movement in which cities around the world are starting to consider a public software approach. -It will explore both the design & deployment process of public software as well as business models to support this development. +It will explore both the design and deployment process of public software as well as business models to support this development. As such, it will lay out a new direction for creative industries as well as new relations between governments, citizens and creative industries to develop city software from a public interest perspective. ## Role and participation of partners @@ -155,21 +153,21 @@ Vurb can establish itself as a leading company in the internationally emerging f The city of Amsterdam can learn from international stakeholders and also present itself as one of the leading cities in Europe in this field. -## Deliverables & Activities +## Deliverables and activities | Deliverable | Partners | Timeframe | |-------|-------|-------| -| Partner meeting, setting the stage | AUAS & VURB & City of Amsterdam | | -| [Workshop 1 Code4All summit in Bucharest](workshops/bucurest.md) | AUAS & VURB & City of Amsterdam | 8 October 2018 | -| Report Workshop 1 | AUAS & VURB | | -| [Workshop 2 Smart City World Expo in Barcelona](workshops/barcelona.md) | AUAS & VURB | 16 November 2018 | -| Report Workshop 2 | AUAS & VURB | | -| [Workshop 3 at the City of Amsterdam](workshops/amsterdam.md) | AUAS & VURB | 19-20 November 2018 | -| Report Workshop 3 | AUAS & VURB | | +| Partner meeting, setting the stage | AUAS, VURB and City of Amsterdam | | +| [Workshop 1 Code4All summit in Bucharest](workshops/bucurest.md) | AUAS, VURB and City of Amsterdam | 8 October 2018 | +| Report Workshop 1 | AUAS and VURB | | +| [Workshop 2 Smart City World Expo in Barcelona](workshops/barcelona.md) | AUAS and VURB | 16 November 2018 | +| Report Workshop 2 | AUAS and VURB | | +| [Workshop 3 at the City of Amsterdam](workshops/amsterdam.md) | AUAS and VURB | 19-20 November 2018 | +| Report Workshop 3 | AUAS and VURB | | | [Guide for the Deployment of Public Software](http://standard.publiccode.net/) | VURB | | | Network Overview (Index of relevant parties) | VURB | | -| Research Agenda | AUAS | | -| [Final Presentation Public Event](https://www.meetup.com/DataLab-Amsterdam/events/260303655/) | AUAS & VURB | 18 April 2019 | +| [Research agenda] | AUAS | | +| [Final Presentation Public Event](https://www.meetup.com/DataLab-Amsterdam/events/260303655/) | AUAS and VURB | 18 April 2019 | ## Research plan @@ -178,14 +176,14 @@ The project is organized around three (international) workshops / network meetin During these workshops, parties involved in the deployment of public software will be invited to share their learnings, discuss their issues, and develop an agenda for the further development of public software. A framework for these meetings will be developed by the project partners in the first month of the project, following desk research and internal meetings. -Contributors to these workshops will come from municipalities, national and European regulatory agencies, software developers, think tanks & consultancies, NGOs and researchers. +Contributors to these workshops will come from municipalities, national and European regulatory agencies, software developers, think tanks and consultancies, NGOs and researchers. Examples are representatives from Barcelona’s and Amsterdam’s CTO office, researchers from the Organicity H2020 research project, representatives from the Open and Agile Smart Cities Foundation, Delta10 open source software development for cities, Kennisland etc. The exact parties will be identified in the first month of the project. The workshops will take place in Amsterdam, Barcelona and Brussels. The movement for public software is an international one, and it is therefore important to involve international stakeholders in this process. Barcelona is chosen as a site, because the city is known as a forerunner in this field, with a very active CTO office. -Brussels is an interesting place as it is the residency of many international and European organization active in this field, such as the Open and Agile Smart Cities programme. +Brussels is an interesting place as it is the residency of many international and European organization active in this field, such as the [Open and Agile Smart Cities programme](https://oascities.org/). After each workshop, a report with the main findings will be distributed. After the workshops, a first edition of the Guide for the Deployment of Public Software will be compiled and an agenda for further research will be drafted. @@ -196,11 +194,11 @@ The Guide and the Agenda will be presented at a public event at the end of the p ### Gemeente Amsterdam, Office of CTO -Client & developer of software; looking for ways to further develop models for inter-city collaboration in development of public software. +Client and developer of software; looking for ways to further develop models for inter-city collaboration in development of public software. Contributes to agenda setting for network meetings/workshops. -### Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), Faculty of Digital Media and Creative Industries, Lectorate of Play & Civic Media +### Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), Faculty of Digital Media and Creative Industries, Lectorate of Play and Civic Media Knowledge partner, wants to further the research and knowledge on public values and urban infrastructure. diff --git a/workshops/amsterdam.md b/workshops/amsterdam.md index f737664..2c3dd4d 100644 --- a/workshops/amsterdam.md +++ b/workshops/amsterdam.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ The concept of Public Code provides for this need for sovereignty and digital ci A series of criteria were discussed that should be operative in public code software and its documentation: * Privacy: how is the privacy of data guaranteed? -* (Meta)data procedures & flows: what are the inputs and outputs of the software? What data byproducts are produced? Where does the software tap into other systems and databases? +* (Meta)data procedures and flows: what are the inputs and outputs of the software? What data byproducts are produced? Where does the software tap into other systems and databases? * Margin of error: can this be made explicit in the code or documentation? * Data-legibility: to what extent should not only the code itself but also the data it collects and produces be part of the public code requirements? * Limits: probably not all data-processing processes should be open. If the algorithm for fraud detection is made public, this would enable fraudulent actors to change their practices to circumvent the algorithm. In the case of predictive policing, this principle becomes more ambivalent. On the one hand, criminals would be well served by opening-up the underlying algorithmic processes. On the other, citizens could claim they have a right to understand why their behavior is scrutinized, and to what extent racist or other biases play a role in the algorithms. diff --git a/workshops/bucurest.md b/workshops/bucurest.md index eb34e1c..805de42 100644 --- a/workshops/bucurest.md +++ b/workshops/bucurest.md @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Another unclarity in our use of public software is its precise domain of applica ### The 'Smart Citizen' -We started off by positioning public software against the black box proprietary smart city approach of the city as a service, wanting to contribute to the transition from proprietary smart city software to the design & employment of ‘public code’ that can be deployed by cities in their operational and policy processes in order to better safeguard public values. +We started off by positioning public software against the black box proprietary smart city approach of the city as a service, wanting to contribute to the transition from proprietary smart city software to the design and employment of ‘public code’ that can be deployed by cities in their operational and policy processes in order to better safeguard public values. In addition, we have now found that we also have to define ourselves in relation to the ‘smart citizen’ perspective of civic tech. Civic tech takes a more tactical perspective whereas we take a more fundamental and ontological approach. Civic tech also runs the risk of becoming solutionist, somehow embracing a silicon valley or web 2.0 ethos of appropriating existing tech to solve civil societies’ issues, without a deeper rethinking of the underlying principles in these tools. It is not that we are against civic tech, or smart cities, but both need an underlying public software approach. ## What we can do next @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ In addition, we have now found that we also have to define ourselves in relation There are various things we could do. 1. Strengthen ‘ontological’ vision of software as platform and active agent shaping society. There is a bit of literature on this in software studies and platform studies. This could be the underlying philosophical argument for our case, and could be developed in a position paper as well as in a scientific paper or journal article. -2. Develop a ‘design manifesto’ or guidelines or process for software development from a public code perspective: a what & how on public software. +2. Develop a ‘design manifesto’ or guidelines or process for software development from a public code perspective: a what and how on public software. 3. Develop policy guidelines for public code (e.g. is public code something like a GDPR that affects all software and platforms, or is it mainly applicable to particular areas?) 4. Develop software standards for public code and a licensing scheme. 5. Develop ideas for a public code production ecosystem: what should this look like, who is responsible for it, what kind of market places and collaborations do we foresee, is there a business model etc? From da09c9bf9106ca762e6f4800d9cb077e75f4f065 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:57:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 03/10] Proofreading of index --- index.md | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.md b/index.md index ba7a2e0..5be7bf6 100644 --- a/index.md +++ b/index.md @@ -87,63 +87,54 @@ This project addresses the question of how public values can be safeguarded in t ## Network, relevant questions and knowledge gaps The underlying questions and knowledge gaps for this project have been identified by various parties that are part of this consortium as well as actors in their networks. -In the first place, there are the fore-runner cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona. -Over the last few years they have invested a lot of energy and resources in public software creation, either directly or through their engagement in research projects such as those funded by Horizon2020. -They have by now developed a number of projects, and are interested in the question how these can be made productive beyond their initial state. -For example, what would it take for other cities to use some of the public software that they have been developing? +In the first place, there are the forerunner cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona. + +Over the last few years they have invested a lot of energy and resources in public software creation, either directly or through their engagement in research projects such as those funded by Horizon2020. They have by now developed a number of projects, and are interested in the question how these can be made productive beyond their initial state. For example, what would it take for other cities to use some of the public software that they have been developing? Other cities have only recently discovered (or are still to discover) the importance of public software deployment. -They are looking for practical angles. -What would a successful trajectory for the deployment of public software look like? These municipalities need guidance on development of continuously delivered software products. -The cities need product validation guides and design pattern languages. - Smaller cities need ‘unboxing’ guides as consumers/deployers of these productized public platforms. +They are looking for practical angles. What would a successful trajectory for the deployment of public software look like? These municipalities need guidance on development of continuously delivered software products. +The cities need product validation guides and design pattern languages. Smaller cities need ‘unboxing’ guides as consumers/deployers of these productized public platforms. -Research institutions have also been involved in the production of public software, for instance through H2020 grants. -Their main issue is the question of how they can develop their software from a ‘project’ to a ‘product’ that can be deployed in other contexts beyond the original test cases. +Research institutions have also been involved in the production of public software, for instance through H2020 grants. Their main issue is the question of how they can develop their software from a ‘project’ to a ‘product’ that can be deployed in other contexts beyond the original test cases. Lastly, there are creative industry companies (as well as foundations and NGOs) who are active in this field and who are looking for a role as ‘orchestrators’ for the development of public software. -There is a need for market places, consultancy on productization, as well as guidance of continuous development of public software, and business models to sustain this practice. +There is a need for marketplaces, consultancy on productization, as well as guidance of continuous development of public software, and business models to sustain this practice. Questions that need to be addressed are: How can cities collaboratively build digital infrastructure using agile continuous delivery techniques that have enabled massive software products in major cloud software enterprises? How can smaller municipalities most easily deploy software developed by this network? How can third parties, such as companies and public agencies, participate most productively in this development effort, both as producers and implementers of larger municipal public digital projects? -In this project, Vurb, City of Amsterdam, and AUAS are working to identify the friction points in both the development of these large projects and their deployment across smaller municipalities. +In this project, Vurb, City of Amsterdam and AUAS are working to identify the friction points in both the development of these large projects and their deployment across smaller municipalities. + We are seeing this shift from proprietary to public development, but what do the business models look like and how do municipalities begin or grow these ecosystems? As a larger collection of public digital infrastructural tools is developed, creative and technical industries will need guidance on how to participate in new business models around providing value as implementers of instances of these tools and platforms as services. -## How does it contribute to the [Dutch creative industries topsector ](https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/innovatief-ondernemen/topsectoren/topsector-creatieve-industrie) +## How does it contribute to the [Dutch creative industries topsector](https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/innovatief-ondernemen/topsectoren/topsector-creatieve-industrie) This project will feature creative industries based in Amsterdam at the center of an international movement in which cities around the world are starting to consider a public software approach. + It will explore both the design and deployment process of public software as well as business models to support this development. + As such, it will lay out a new direction for creative industries as well as new relations between governments, citizens and creative industries to develop city software from a public interest perspective. ## Role and participation of partners The consortium has three core partners. -Internationally, the City of Amsterdam is a forerunner in the deployment of public software. -It is looking for ways to further develop this model of software deployment. -How can cities collaborate on the further development and deployment of public software? In this project, it will contribute its experiences so far, and help in the setting of the framework and agenda for the workshops. -Their involvement also means that the learnings from this project are directly looped back to the local government of Amsterdam. +Internationally, the City of Amsterdam is a forerunner in the deployment of public software. It is looking for ways to further develop this model of software deployment. How can cities collaborate on the further development and deployment of public software? In this project, it will contribute its experiences so far, and help in the setting of the framework and agenda for the workshops. Their involvement also means that the learnings from this project are directly looped back to the local government of Amsterdam. -Vurb BV is a design and strategic consulting agency focused on creating a viable future for cities and civic operating systems that are highly participatory and drive societal engagement. -They communicate, prototype, and implement this future by researching and developing applications, technologies and policy. -Vurb is in the process of launching a Foundation to serve as a resource and nexus for Public Software development. -This project will serve to provide context and focus to their initial efforts there. +Vurb BV is a design and strategic consulting agency focused on creating a viable future for cities and civic operating systems that are highly participatory and drive societal engagement. They communicate, prototype and implement this future by researching and developing applications, technologies and policy. Vurb is in the process of launching a foundation to serve as a resource and nexus for public software development. This project will serve to provide context and focus to their initial efforts there. In this project they will be responsible for the production of the Guide. The Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences will connect the consortium with international (academic) research networks on public values and urban infrastructure. -In the past few years, it has been part of a number of research projects that explore public values in relation to urban infrastructure development. -This project takes that research one step further and makes it concrete by zooming in to the case of public software deployment. +In the past few years, it has been part of a number of research projects that explore public values in relation to urban infrastructure development. This project takes that research one step further and makes it concrete by zooming in to the case of public software deployment. ## Innovation -The project is innovative as it aims to contribute to the development of a new model for the deployment of public software for cities, taking a pubic values angle. -This is an emerging approach that has recently gained international recognition by cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona, yet many questions still remain open as to how to further this approach. +The project is innovative as it aims to contribute to the development of a new model for the deployment of public software for cities, taking a pubic values angle. This is an emerging approach that has recently gained international recognition by cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona, yet many questions still remain open as to how to further this approach. ### Improving the position of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences This project connects the AUAS with some leading actors in the field of public software development such as the Amsterdam and Barcelona CTO offices, and will strengthen its position in international networks such as the Open and Agile Smart Cities programme. -Contacts with organizations and stakeholders in Barcelona and Brussel will be beneficial for its position in future international research grant applications, and being one of the initiators of the research agenda will further acknowledge its position as a leading research institute in the domain of the creative industries. +Contacts with organizations and stakeholders in Barcelona and Brussels will be beneficial for its position in future international research grant applications, and being one of the initiators of the research agenda will further acknowledge its position as a leading research institute in the domain of the creative industries. ### Improving position network partners @@ -165,28 +156,22 @@ The city of Amsterdam can learn from international stakeholders and also present | [Workshop 3 at the City of Amsterdam](workshops/amsterdam.md) | AUAS and VURB | 19-20 November 2018 | | Report Workshop 3 | AUAS and VURB | | | [Guide for the Deployment of Public Software](http://standard.publiccode.net/) | VURB | | -| Network Overview (Index of relevant parties) | VURB | | -| [Research agenda] | AUAS | | +| Network Overview (index of relevant parties) | VURB | | +| Research agenda | AUAS | | | [Final Presentation Public Event](https://www.meetup.com/DataLab-Amsterdam/events/260303655/) | AUAS and VURB | 18 April 2019 | ## Research plan The project will run from February 2018 until February 2019. -The project is organized around three (international) workshops / network meetings, each lasting two days. -During these workshops, parties involved in the deployment of public software will be invited to share their learnings, discuss their issues, and develop an agenda for the further development of public software. -A framework for these meetings will be developed by the project partners in the first month of the project, following desk research and internal meetings. +The project is organized around three (international) workshops/network meetings, each lasting two days. +During these workshops, parties involved in the deployment of public software will be invited to share their learnings, discuss their issues, and develop an agenda for the further development of public software. A framework for these meetings will be developed by the project partners in the first month of the project, following desk research and internal meetings. -Contributors to these workshops will come from municipalities, national and European regulatory agencies, software developers, think tanks and consultancies, NGOs and researchers. -Examples are representatives from Barcelona’s and Amsterdam’s CTO office, researchers from the Organicity H2020 research project, representatives from the Open and Agile Smart Cities Foundation, Delta10 open source software development for cities, Kennisland etc. -The exact parties will be identified in the first month of the project. +Contributors to these workshops will come from municipalities, national and European regulatory agencies, software developers, think tanks and consultancies, NGOs and researchers. Examples are representatives from the Barcelona and Amsterdam CTO offices, researchers from the Organicity H2020 research project, representatives from the Open and Agile Smart Cities Foundation, Delta10 open source software development for cities, Kennisland etc. The exact parties will be identified in the first month of the project. -The workshops will take place in Amsterdam, Barcelona and Brussels. -The movement for public software is an international one, and it is therefore important to involve international stakeholders in this process. -Barcelona is chosen as a site, because the city is known as a forerunner in this field, with a very active CTO office. -Brussels is an interesting place as it is the residency of many international and European organization active in this field, such as the [Open and Agile Smart Cities programme](https://oascities.org/). +The workshops will take place in Amsterdam, Barcelona and Brussels. The movement for public software is an international one, and it is therefore important to involve international stakeholders in this process. Barcelona has been chosen as a site because the city is known as a forerunner in this field, with a very active CTO office. +Brussels is an interesting place as it is the home of many international and European organizations active in this field, such as the [Open and Agile Smart Cities programme](https://oascities.org/). -After each workshop, a report with the main findings will be distributed. -After the workshops, a first edition of the Guide for the Deployment of Public Software will be compiled and an agenda for further research will be drafted. +After each workshop, a report with the main findings will be distributed. After the workshops, a first edition of the Guide for the Deployment of Public Software will be compiled and an agenda for further research will be drafted. The Guide and the Agenda will be presented at a public event at the end of the project. @@ -206,6 +191,6 @@ Does project management. Sets the agenda for network meetings. Reports on networ ### Vurb BV -Design and development partner, wants to concretize the formation of our public service Foundation around this process, looking for models and processes for the deployment of public software. +Design and development partner, wants to concretize the formation of our public service foundation around this process, looking for models and processes for the deployment of public software. Identifies stakeholders. Invites stakeholders to workshops. Develops Guides. Contributes to the Research Agenda. From 53d4c617dd7f94e87664271b24172bf6b7da16da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:59:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] fix spelling of bucharest.md --- index.md | 2 +- workshops/{bucurest.md => bucharest.md} | 0 workshops/index.md | 2 +- 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) rename workshops/{bucurest.md => bucharest.md} (100%) diff --git a/index.md b/index.md index 5be7bf6..6219767 100644 --- a/index.md +++ b/index.md @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ The city of Amsterdam can learn from international stakeholders and also present | Deliverable | Partners | Timeframe | |-------|-------|-------| | Partner meeting, setting the stage | AUAS, VURB and City of Amsterdam | | -| [Workshop 1 Code4All summit in Bucharest](workshops/bucurest.md) | AUAS, VURB and City of Amsterdam | 8 October 2018 | +| [Workshop 1 Code4All summit in Bucharest](workshops/bucharest.md) | AUAS, VURB and City of Amsterdam | 8 October 2018 | | Report Workshop 1 | AUAS and VURB | | | [Workshop 2 Smart City World Expo in Barcelona](workshops/barcelona.md) | AUAS and VURB | 16 November 2018 | | Report Workshop 2 | AUAS and VURB | | diff --git a/workshops/bucurest.md b/workshops/bucharest.md similarity index 100% rename from workshops/bucurest.md rename to workshops/bucharest.md diff --git a/workshops/index.md b/workshops/index.md index 70455c5..15c363e 100644 --- a/workshops/index.md +++ b/workshops/index.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ This series of workshops is organized by a consortium made out of the Foundation ## Workshops -* October 8: [The Heroes Of Tech (Code4All summit) București](bucurest.md) +* October 8: [The Heroes Of Tech (Code4All summit) București](bucharest.md) * November 16: [Smart City Expo World Congress, Barcelona](barcelona.md) * November 20: [City of Amsterdam](amsterdam.md) From 5e01b7d239b424f3470cf4369e376a634d080b20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:39:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 05/10] proofing amsterdam.md --- workshops/amsterdam.md | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/workshops/amsterdam.md b/workshops/amsterdam.md index 2c3dd4d..b41c452 100644 --- a/workshops/amsterdam.md +++ b/workshops/amsterdam.md @@ -2,77 +2,77 @@ *This workshop took place at November 20 10:00-16:00 at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam* -The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to the one for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to the one for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. -In three international workshops, the context, challenges, and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand Public Code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code? +In three international workshops, the context, challenges, and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand public code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? The first workshop took place in Bucharest in October 2018, during the conference Heroes of Tech, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. -The second workshop took place in Barcelona, in November 2018 during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs, and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. +The second workshop took place in Barcelona, in November 2018 during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. A third workshop was organized in Amsterdam in November 2018, at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Participants included researchers and representatives from various civil society organizations, local governments and software companies. ## Why is public code important? -The third workshop started with a reiteration of the various arguments necessitating the introduction of the public code-concept. The main argument is that the status of software in urban governance is changing. Increasingly it is becoming a fundamental infrastructure in a city’s operations and the interactions between citizens and governments, as well as a major force in the management of common resources. Software then is not just a commodity that can be ordered from a catalog like a desk or even a word processing suite. Increasingly it plays a role in the execution, monitoring, and enforcement of city policies. In this process it is not just an ‘executor’ of policy, but increasingly software is set to play a role as a deciding actor, for instance when algorithms play a role in deciding which districts need extra policing or social services, which citizens are eligible for extra support or which citizens’ activities should be further scrutinized. In other words, software is now moving into a place where policy is active. +The third workshop started with a reiteration of the various arguments necessitating the introduction of the public code concept. The main argument is that the status of software in urban governance is changing. Increasingly it is becoming a fundamental infrastructure in a city’s operations and the interactions between citizens and governments, as well as a major force in the management of common resources. Software then is not just a commodity that can be ordered from a catalog like a desk or even a word processing suite. Increasingly it plays a role in the execution, monitoring and enforcement of city policies. In this process it is not just an ‘executor’ of policy, but increasingly software is set to play a role as a deciding actor, for instance when algorithms play a role in deciding which districts need extra policing or social services, which citizens are eligible for extra support or which citizens’ activities should be further scrutinized. In other words, software is now moving into a place where policy is active. -That means that computer code has to comply with a series of principles related to democratic governance. It needs to be understandable for its constituents, transparent in its execution, and both politicians, as well as citizens and civil society organizations, should be able to hold it accountable. Furthermore, it should comply with a series of other public values. For instance, its workings should be inclusive and non-discriminatory in character. This means that software cannot be a black box, ordered from outside companies. Instead, cities need technological sovereignty that allows them to control city software, just like they are able to control policy that is legally formulated in laws. At the same time citizens need this software to be transparent, a nascent ‘platform society’ should honor a series of digital citizens’ rights. +That means that computer code has to comply with a series of principles related to democratic governance. It needs to be understandable for its constituents, transparent in its execution, and both politicians as well as citizens and civil society organizations should be able to hold it accountable. Furthermore, it should comply with a series of other public values. For instance, its workings should be inclusive and non-discriminatory in character. This means that software cannot be a black box, ordered from outside companies. Instead, cities need technological sovereignty that allows them to control city software, just like they are able to control policy that is legally formulated in laws. At the same time citizens need this software to be transparent, a nascent ‘platform society’ should honor a series of digital citizens’ rights. -The concept of Public Code provides for this need for sovereignty and digital citizen rights in two ways. First, it proposes a set of values and criteria that software can be evaluated against. Second, it proposes a mode of production and stewardship for public code that enables governments and third parties to develop code basis and share these between cities. +The concept of public code provides for this need for sovereignty and digital citizen rights in two ways. First, it proposes a set of values and criteria that software can be evaluated against. Second, it proposes a mode of production and stewardship for public code that enables governments and third parties to develop codebases and share these between cities. -## Public Code Criteria +## Public code criteria A series of criteria were discussed that should be operative in public code software and its documentation: * Privacy: how is the privacy of data guaranteed? * (Meta)data procedures and flows: what are the inputs and outputs of the software? What data byproducts are produced? Where does the software tap into other systems and databases? * Margin of error: can this be made explicit in the code or documentation? -* Data-legibility: to what extent should not only the code itself but also the data it collects and produces be part of the public code requirements? +* Data legibility: to what extent should not only the code itself but also the data it collects and produces be part of the public code requirements? * Limits: probably not all data-processing processes should be open. If the algorithm for fraud detection is made public, this would enable fraudulent actors to change their practices to circumvent the algorithm. In the case of predictive policing, this principle becomes more ambivalent. On the one hand, criminals would be well served by opening-up the underlying algorithmic processes. On the other, citizens could claim they have a right to understand why their behavior is scrutinized, and to what extent racist or other biases play a role in the algorithms. -* Key variables: should they be made easily identifiable for further development / appropriation by third parties? +* Key variables: should they be made easily identifiable for further development/appropriation by third parties? * Documentation: what forms of documentation should be required? -* Should Public Software also include particular values, such as eco-friendliness? +* Should public software also include particular values, such as eco-friendliness? -## Public Code Production +## Public code production -Public Code provides also a framework for the production and distribution of code. The central idea is that public software is also open source and can be shared between governments. This led to the following discussion points: +Public code provides also a framework for the production and distribution of code. The central idea is that public software is also open source and can be shared between governments. This led to the following discussion points: * Who can produce public code? In essence, public code is a set of rules. Everyone who follows these rules can play a part in the production of public software. This means that the writing of code can also be provided by commercial companies. -* However, one of these rules is that the code base should be open source and freely accessible. That means that companies who produce public code do not own the IP; this implies a shift in the business models for software consulting companies. Their business model is no longer based on the licenses they sell to access their IP-protected software, but rather should be based on hourly rated consulting fee. -* In order to be successful, Public Software would need a form of software stewardship. Who will take care of repositories and maintenance of software? Could an independent organization play a role here? Or could this be left to service contracts with commercial providers? +* However, one of these rules is that the codebase should be open source and freely accessible. That means that companies who produce public code do not own the IP; this implies a shift in the business models for software consulting companies. Their business model is no longer based on the licenses they sell to access their IP-protected software, but rather should be based on hourly rated consulting fee. +* In order to be successful, public software would need a form of software stewardship. Who will take care of repositories and maintenance of software? Could an independent organization play a role here? Or could this be left to service contracts with commercial providers? * How is liability organized in the production of public software? Who can be held responsible when things go wrong or the software does not deliver what it is expected to do? -* Procurement: could we move to outcome based tenders or service level based tenders, rather than starting from a precise definition of requirements, in which the problem is described, rather than the solution? E.g. We have problem Y, this should be solved in tech framework B, rather than: build it us solution A similar trend is discernable in architecture, where clients do not just order a building but take on a multi-year service contract that promises to deliver a particular performance. +* Procurement: could we move to outcome based tenders or service level based tenders, rather than starting from a precise definition of requirements, in which the problem is described, rather than the solution? A similar trend is discernible in architecture, where clients do not just order a building but take on a multi-year service contract that promises to deliver a particular performance. -## Case: Cut-the-shortcut; A Highway Surveillance system. +## Case: Cut the shortcut, a highway surveillance system To make the conditions for and repercussions of public code more concrete, a particular case was discussed in more detail. It concerns a town that is located right next to a busy highway. When there are traffic jams on the highway, many motorists seek refuge by taking a short-cut through the town; they simply get off the high way on one end of town, drive through the city center on a regional road, and get back on the highway at the other side of the city. Obviously, this behavior has a negative effect on the quality of life in the town itself, increasing traffic and exhaust. At the same time, it may bring in extra business, e.g. for local gas stations. -In order to limit the negative consequences of these motorists tactical behavior, the local government has set up a ‘destination traffic only’ policy, making it illegal to cross the city. To effect this policy, traffic surveillance cams are set-up at the beginning and the end of the town limits. Motorists that drive in from one side and exit on the other side within a certain time limit are fined. Discussions have taken place about possible exceptions: e.g. customers of the gas station, taxi’s and other transport network companies dropping off or picking up customers are exempted. +In order to limit the negative consequences of these motorists' tactical behavior, the local government has set up a ‘destination traffic only’ policy, making it illegal to cross the city. To effect this policy, traffic surveillance cams are set-up at the beginning and the end of the town limits. Motorists that drive in from one side and exit on the other side within a certain time limit are fined. Discussions have taken place about possible exceptions: e.g. customers of the gas station, taxis and other transport network companies dropping off or picking up customers are exempted. -What would it mean to build a code base for such a system from a public code perspective? Obviously, the decision to fence off through-traffic is a democratic one that is taken by the local city council. From a public code perspective the code base that is to enforce this measure should comply with a number of requirements: +What would it mean to build a codebase for such a system from a public code perspective? Obviously, the decision to fence off through-traffic is a democratic one that is taken by the local city council. From a public code perspective the codebase that is to enforce this measure should comply with a number of requirements: * It should be transparent. Citizens or civic organizations should be able to understand what rule is enforced, and be able to check whether the software delivers on this. What units of measurement are used, what margins of errors? -* Variable used in such a system should be easily identifiable and adjustable. E.g. exceptions for particular vehicles (e.g. taxi’s picking up clients, or parents dropping off children at school) -* It should be accountable. If I get fined, I need to be able to verify that this was a just decision and have access to the proof assembled by the system as well as a procedure to debate its correctness / legitimation. +* Variables used in such a system should be easily identifiable and adjustable. E.g. exceptions for particular vehicles (e.g. taxis picking up clients, or parents dropping off children at school) +* It should be accountable. If I get fined, I need to be able to verify that this was a just decision and have access to the proof assembled by the system as well as a procedure to debate its correctness/legitimacy. * Privacy should be guaranteed. * The software itself should be well documented and made available for other cities interested in similar measures. This again requires a modular organization of the software with easily changeable and amendable variables. At the same time, a number of other issues were raised that require further discussion: -* Where exactly does the process of public code creation begin? Is it in the writing of the code base itself, ordered by the city government to either an internal office or an outside contractor? Or should it include a broader participatory design trajectory in which local stakeholders think along about possible issues and solutions in the process? +* Where exactly does the process of public code creation begin? Is it in the writing of the codebase itself, ordered by the city government from either an internal office or an outside contractor? Or should it include a broader participatory design trajectory in which local stakeholders think along about possible issues and solutions in the process? * To what extent should this software be interfacing with other systems, e.g. should it be able to communicate to GPS-navigation systems the times of the day and classes of vehicles that it is of concern to? * Who exactly decides on the criteria? Is it the local government? Or could there be a self-learning system in place that optimizes criteria based on a problem statement? If so then how could its logic be explained and the current variables in place be communicated? * How is the whole process organized? Who sets up a design brief, who produces the code, how is it checked against public code criteria, who maintains the code, how can it be distributed? -* Where does the process of public code licensing end? For instance, should the hardware company providing the camera’s (and possible algorithms) for license plate recognition also be evaluated against public code principles? +* Where does the process of public code licensing end? For instance, should the hardware company providing the cameras (and possible algorithms) for license plate recognition also be evaluated against public code principles? ## Discussion: limits of public code -Like in the first two workshops, again two perspectives were discussed: a value-based perspective and a production perspective. The latter is a set of procedures for the production of code that is shareable, and could be understood as a form of ‘open source-plus’: its code base is open source, but there is a number of extra requirements with regard to both the code itself as well as its stewardship and distribution practices. +Like in the first two workshops, again two perspectives were discussed: a value-based perspective and a production perspective. The latter is a set of procedures for the production of code that is shareable, and could be understood as a form of ‘open source-plus’: its codebase is open source, but there is a number of extra requirements with regard to both the code itself as well as its stewardship and distribution practices. -Such a public code-perspective partly requires a cultural shift in the production of code, including new forms of procurement. One of the points under discussion is to what extent public code is the domain of gov-tech, or whether it can be applied to broader constituencies. Could, for instance, the software for (commercial) energy distribution platforms be required to run according to public code principles? Or could housing associations or even transport network companies subscribe to public code principles? +Such a public code-perspective partly requires a cultural shift in the production of code, including new forms of procurement. One of the points under discussion is to what extent public code is the domain of govtech, or whether it can be applied to broader constituencies. Could, for instance, the software for (commercial) energy distribution platforms be required to run according to public code principles? Or could housing associations or even transport network companies subscribe to public code principles? -An important question is to what extent public code requires some form of a meta-framework, such as for instance the ‘common ground’ framework currently under discussion by the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities), that allows for modular development of service applications building on a particular organization of datasets? +An important question is to what extent public code requires some form of a meta framework, such as for instance the ‘common ground’ framework currently under discussion by the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities), that allows for modular development of service applications building on a particular organization of datasets? -With regard to the values based-perspective, other questions were raised about its limitations. Is public code mostly concerned with procedural democratic values such as transparency and accountability? Or should it also include a particular set of values, such as social inclusion, anti-discrimination, environmental impact, and emancipatory potential? +With regard to the values-based perspective, other questions were raised about its limitations. Is public code mostly concerned with procedural democratic values such as transparency and accountability? Or should it also include a particular set of values, such as social inclusion, anti-discrimination, environmental impact and emancipatory potential? -Finally, a discussion took place where to start off with the development of public code. Is it possible to start with the value-perspective first and tie in a production perspective later, or do both need to be operative from the very start? Or should there possibly be a tiered system with A/B/C qualifications? +Finally, a discussion took place about where to start with the development of public code. Is it possible to start with the values perspective first and tie in a production perspective later, or do both need to be operative from the very start? Or should there possibly be a tiered system with A/B/C qualifications? From 97fbb89192d498f15fd95112effb29645edd12b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:03:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 06/10] barcelona.md proofed --- workshops/amsterdam.md | 2 +- workshops/barcelona.md | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- workshops/bucharest.md | 2 +- 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) diff --git a/workshops/amsterdam.md b/workshops/amsterdam.md index b41c452..13e4724 100644 --- a/workshops/amsterdam.md +++ b/workshops/amsterdam.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ *This workshop took place at November 20 10:00-16:00 at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam* -The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to the one for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. In three international workshops, the context, challenges, and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand public code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? diff --git a/workshops/barcelona.md b/workshops/barcelona.md index 0426985..9b2cb44 100644 --- a/workshops/barcelona.md +++ b/workshops/barcelona.md @@ -1,96 +1,96 @@ # Workshop Public Code @ Barcelona Smart City Expo -*This workshop took place at November 16 10:00- 18:00 in Barcelona* +*This workshop took place at November 16 10:00-18:00 in Barcelona* -The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to the one for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. -In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand Public Code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code? +In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand public code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? -The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the conference Heroes of Tech, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. +The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the conference Heroes of Tech, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. -The second workshop took place in Barcelona, during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs, and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. +The second workshop took place in Barcelona, during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. ## What are the current problems with digital technology in cities? -As this workshop happened in the shadow of the Smart City Expo, many of the participants were keenly aware of the sales-driven discourses that currently dominate the type of development that we were exploring. The group spoke at length about how the leading network technology companies in this space have sold a story that promises one stop solutions with all inclusive software packages that come with “low low licensing fees” and proprietary databases. +As this workshop happened in the shadow of the Smart City Expo, many of the participants were keenly aware of the sales-driven discourses that currently dominate the type of development that we were exploring. The group spoke at length about how the leading network technology companies in this space have sold a story that promises one stop solutions with all-inclusive software packages that come with “low low licensing fees” and proprietary databases. -Often in their initial deployment, these software packages succeed in solving many of the most egregious issues that cities have around the management of infrastructure, resources and information. But fairly quickly into the engagement, municipal governments realise that they are effectively trapped in a system of ever-increasing licensing fees, proprietary data stores to which they have to pay to access their own data, and inflexible solutions that cannot be adapted by their own technology teams to respond effectively to local problems +Often in their initial deployment, these software packages succeed in solving many of the most egregious issues that cities have around the management of infrastructure, resources and information. But fairly quickly into the engagement, municipal governments realise that they are effectively trapped in a system of ever-increasing licensing fees, proprietary data stores to which they have to pay to access their own data, and inflexible solutions that cannot be adapted by their own technology teams to respond effectively to local problems. -Part of the reason cities find themselves in the situation is due to a long-standing mindset about their relationship with technology. For decades, cities have treated the adoption of technology, and ICT in general, as an exotic technical task, for separated from the core activity of governance and policy production. Many key decision makers around technological deployment in municipal governments have little or no literacy about the implications of various architectural choices involving the deployment of SaaS solutions etc. Customization work is often outsourced to contractors we have no long term relationship with municipalities, and thus, the knowledge is lost between engagements and municipal actors are left at the mercy of the high cost consulting rates of the initial software providers. +Part of the reason cities find themselves in the situation is due to a long-standing mindset about their relationship with technology. For decades, cities have treated the adoption of technology, and ICT in general, as an exotic technical task, far separated from the core activity of governance and policy production. Many key decision makers around technological deployment in municipal governments have little or no literacy about the implications of various architectural choices involving the deployment of SaaS solutions, etc. Customization work is often outsourced to contractors who have no long term relationship with municipalities, and thus, the knowledge is lost between engagements and municipal actors are left at the mercy of the high cost consulting rates of the initial software providers. ### Information -* Wizardry of technology. -* Knowledge often external when using contractors. +* Wizardry of technology +* Knowledge often external when using contractors * Outdated legislation -* Not a lot of qualitative data about solutions with people at the core. -* Data ownership often with companies. +* Not a lot of qualitative data about solutions with people at the core +* Data ownership often with companies ### Organization -* Cities don’t employ people with the necessary skills to evolve tech implementations. -* We need to understand the physical constraints of digital technologies [power, cables, etc] in new urban project work -* Many cities lack a single point of contact for digital transformation, cross-cutting departments and fostering collaboration. +* Cities don’t employ people with the necessary skills to evolve tech implementations +* We need to understand the physical constraints of digital technologies (power, cables, etc) in new urban project work +* Many cities lack a single point of contact for digital transformation, cross-cutting departments and fostering collaboration ### Culture -* People have heard of the domain only through Smart City hype. -* Smart Cities are not inclusive by nature. -* Solutions do not account for cultural, political, and physical differences in cities. +* People have heard of the domain only through smart city hype +* Smart cities are not inclusive by nature +* Solutions do not account for cultural, political and physical differences in cities ## What can we do about these problems? And who can? -Almost any solution to this problem begins with cultural transformation and education within the body of civil servants that makeup the core of municipal function. The key issue is that policy makers realize that their work will slowly become a directly digital process, and that the fundamental work of municipal government will involve the production of software in support of policy implementation. From this perspective, the process of producing software becomes a core activity of the municipality. +Almost any solution to this problem begins with cultural transformation and education within the body of civil servants that make up the core of municipal function. The key issue is that policy makers realize that their work will slowly become a directly digital process, and that the fundamental work of municipal government will involve the production of software in support of policy implementation. From this perspective, the process of producing software becomes a core activity of the municipality. -Much of our discussion here centred around the creation of new roles and discourses bringing stakeholders within government up to speed on their new responsibilities as codebase custodians. the idea reforming general education and education within government to include public digital literacy was put forward. Also among workshop participants, much concern was expressed that the general public would also need to be kept informed of the changing relationship between government and software. This is where the workshop really began to delve into the concept of public code as a resource that would address many of the concerns that the general public have about the use of technology in government, in that public code is transparent, inclusive, and adaptive to the needs of local citizens. +Much of our discussion here centred around the creation of new roles and discourses bringing stakeholders within government up to speed on their new responsibilities as codebase custodians. The idea of reforming general education and education within government to include public digital literacy was put forward. Also among workshop participants, much concern was expressed that the general public would also need to be kept informed of the changing relationship between government and software. This is where the workshop really began to delve into the concept of public code as a resource that would address many of the concerns that the general public have about the use of technology in government, in that public code is transparent, inclusive and adaptive to the needs of local citizens. -* Culture of collaboration for problem solvers. -* Defining real needs across cities. -* Mandatory tech classes for all ‘officials’. -* Reform of education to include public digital literacy. -* Deconstructing the Smart City -* Techno-legal framework for privacy protection and data-extraction prevention. +* Culture of collaboration for problem solvers +* Defining real needs across cities +* Mandatory tech classes for all ‘officials’ +* Reform of education to include public digital literacy +* Deconstructing the smart city +* Techno-legal framework for privacy protection and data-extraction prevention * Make public-private collaborations more attractive. New revenue models? -* Celebrate the risk-taking. +* Celebrate risk-taking * Provide outreach from municipalities to non-tech industries about how they can benefit and participate -* Shared vocabulary. -* Modeling and simulation of public processes. -* Understanding of data vs process/code. -* Produce marketing materials around the language and concept of Public Code -* Create “data steward” role within municipalities. -* Move discourse from “solutions” to “tools”. -* Create a manifesto for cities with different starting points for various stakeholders. -* Pessimistic: “Revolution by disaster” -* Optimistic: Create poetry and metaphors. -* Create think and do tank. -* Multidisciplinary team to develop communications campaign targeting various stakeholders. -* Develop communities of practice. -* Create online resource with clear and concise definitions and processes around use and collaborative production of public code. +* Shared vocabulary +* Modeling and simulation of public processes +* Understanding of data vs process/code +* Produce marketing materials around the language and concept of public code +* Create 'data steward' role within municipalities +* Move discourse from 'solutions' to 'tools' +* Create a manifesto for cities with different starting points for various stakeholders +* Pessimistic: 'revolution by disaster' +* Optimistic: create poetry and metaphors +* Create think and do tank +* Multidisciplinary team to develop communications campaign targeting various stakeholders +* Develop communities of practice +* Create online resource with clear and concise definitions and processes around use and collaborative production of public code ## What is stopping us from doing this? -The workshop participants agreed that the number one block to this type of transformation was almost entirely a lack of effective communication about the drawbacks of commercial software licensing as it currently stands, and the opportunity for municipalities to collaborate in public code development and maintenance. Problems range from the inability to quantize the economic advantages of public collaboration, to the inability to communicate the real changes necessary in technological infrastructure in a tactical way, rather than as an abstract appeal to high-level principles. Larger issues in general software development, such as making code and its processes legible and starting from user concerns in the design process, also play a role in gaining early positive feedback and momentum in public coding projects. +The workshop participants agreed that the number one block to this type of transformation was almost entirely a lack of effective communication about the drawbacks of commercial software licensing as it currently stands, and the opportunity for municipalities to collaborate in public code development and maintenance. Problems range from the inability to quantify the economic advantages of public collaboration, to the inability to communicate the real changes necessary in technological infrastructure in a tactical way, rather than as an abstract appeal to high-level principles. Larger issues in general software development, such as making code and its processes legible and starting from user concerns in the design process, also play a role in gaining early positive feedback and momentum in public coding projects. In general the consensus was that civil servants are naturally risk-averse and fairly conservative in changes to their process. Most participants considered this a good thing, as it provides continuity in the face of rapidly changing politics on the higher levels of municipal government. Thus, the case that one must make to induce an appetite for digital transformation to public code development processes across the board needs to be grounded in very sound economic and policy arguments, as well as providing evidence that the agency of the civil servants themselves will not be eroded by the arrival of new digital tools. -* Lack of literacy in digital rights of policy makers. -* Lack of understanding of the need for this by stakeholders. -* Hard to quantize economic advantages +* Lack of literacy in digital rights of policy makers +* Lack of understanding of the need for this by stakeholders +* Hard to quantify economic advantages * Difficult for involved professional actors to envision their continued empowerment -* Different cultural backgrounds. -* Strategic and visionary, but not tactical. -* Legislation: current legal framework does not take into account new ways of working. -* Middle manager civil servants resist change. -* Articulating long term goals for short term budgets is hard. -* Over-reliance on good will / intention. +* Different cultural backgrounds +* Strategic and visionary, but not tactical +* Legislation: current legal framework does not take into account new ways of working +* Middle manager civil servants resist change +* Articulating long term goals for short term budgets is hard +* Over-reliance on good will/intention * Lack of professional service level and delivery. -* Not starting from user need / working reality of disinterested stakeholders. -* Lack of clear ownership of transformation across city departments and unclear roles. -* Too many options or things to understand. +* Not starting from user need/working reality of disinterested stakeholders +* Lack of clear ownership of transformation across city departments and unclear roles +* Too many options or things to understand * Lack of transparency in establishing new procedures -* Little tooling for making proposed tech legible. -* Little vocabulary overlap. +* Little tooling for making proposed tech legible +* Little vocabulary overlap ## Reflections -As with the first workshop, most of the participants expressed a high level of enthusiasm and anticipation for the development of processes, tools and institutions around the concept of public code. In this group, there was a particular hyper awareness of the growing targeting of municipal governments by incumbent software providers and their SaaS/database entrapments. With GDPR as a recent precedent and the Cambridge Analytica / Facebook debacle still fresh in everyone's mind, the idea of building systems that guarantee the transparency of decision-making in software driven governmental systems seemed a quite urgent thing to support. Our meetup at this workshop seems as though it might serve as the first of many gatherings in the shadow of the ultra commercial smart City World Expo to strategize about building an alternative stack of tools to enable public administrations to retain agency and begin to evolve into a new form that marries the code of software and the code of policy in an organisation that is citizen centric, open, inclusive, and adaptive for the future. +As with the first workshop, most of the participants expressed a high level of enthusiasm and anticipation for the development of processes, tools and institutions around the concept of public code. In this group, there was a particular hyper awareness of the growing targeting of municipal governments by incumbent software providers and their SaaS/database entrapments. With GDPR as a recent precedent and the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook debacle still fresh in everyone's mind, the idea of building systems that guarantee the transparency of decision-making in software driven governmental systems seemed a quite urgent thing to support. Our meetup at this workshop seems as though it might serve as the first of many gatherings in the shadow of the ultra commercial smart City World Expo to strategize about building an alternative stack of tools to enable public administrations to retain agency and begin to evolve into a new form that marries the code of software and the code of policy in an organisation that is citizen centric, open, inclusive and adaptive for the future. diff --git a/workshops/bucharest.md b/workshops/bucharest.md index 805de42..0580627 100644 --- a/workshops/bucharest.md +++ b/workshops/bucharest.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ *This workshop took place at October 8th 16:00-17:30 at the [Code for All summit Heroes Of Tech](https://heroesoftech.com/) in Bucharest, Romania* -The *Smart Cities? Public Code!* project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to the one for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The *Smart Cities? Public Code!* project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand Public Code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code? From d4bd1d364d160a91aecf3284a6c3e15f0f96c032 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:59:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] Standardised H1s to 'event, city' format --- workshops/barcelona.md | 2 +- workshops/bucharest.md | 14 +++++++------- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/workshops/barcelona.md b/workshops/barcelona.md index 9b2cb44..17ab6a1 100644 --- a/workshops/barcelona.md +++ b/workshops/barcelona.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Workshop Public Code @ Barcelona Smart City Expo +# Workshop Public Code @ Smart City Expo, Barcelona *This workshop took place at November 16 10:00-18:00 in Barcelona* diff --git a/workshops/bucharest.md b/workshops/bucharest.md index 0580627..8aa5402 100644 --- a/workshops/bucharest.md +++ b/workshops/bucharest.md @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ -# Workshop Public Code @ Code for All summit +# Workshop Public Code @ Code for All summit, Bucharest *This workshop took place at October 8th 16:00-17:30 at the [Code for All summit Heroes Of Tech](https://heroesoftech.com/) in Bucharest, Romania* -The *Smart Cities? Public Code!* project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The *Smart Cities? Public Code!* project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. -In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand Public Code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code? +In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand public code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? This workshop is organized by a consortium made out of the Foundation for Public Code, the City of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. The aim is to gather information for the benefit of this research and to start a network of collaborators on the topic. @@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ This workshop is part of a series of events that will lead to a implementation g ## Introduction -The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the conference *Heroes of Tech*, organized by *Code for All*, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. As such *Code for All* is firmly embedded in an international scene around Civic Tech. In our workshop, the concept of public code was discussed in three rounds, each focusing on a particular question: what are the current problems around software in public institutions? What can we do about that? And what is stopping us from doing that? +The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the Heroes of Tech conference, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. As such Code for All is firmly embedded in an international scene around civic tech. In our workshop, the concept of public code was discussed in three rounds, each focusing on a particular question: what are the current problems around software in public institutions? What can we do about that? And what is stopping us from doing that? -The workshop took off with a brief exploration of the current issues with software developed by or in public institutions. Point of departure is a structural shift towards a network of platform society, in which software is becoming an agent in the organizations of all sectors of society. Increasingly software can be understood as a basic infrastructure that underlies all facets of society, including the management of public resources and interactions between governments and citizens. In these processes, software should not be understood as a mere, neutral layer. Instead, it is becoming an agent that acts based on rule sets, organizational goals and ideological preferences and cultural assumptions set in its code. This means that software is becoming an enabling and disabling actor, that can steer interactions in the public domain. In addition, its architecture sets (or fails to set) the conditions for the organization of public values such as transparency and accountability. In other words, software code increasingly equals legal code. Both forms of code set conditions for society to function according to democratically set public values, the former executed by machines and the latter by humans. +The workshop took off with a brief exploration of the current issues with software developed by or in public institutions. The point of departure is a structural shift towards a network of platform society, in which software is becoming an agent in the organizations of all sectors of society. Increasingly software can be understood as a basic infrastructure that underlies all facets of society, including the management of public resources and interactions between governments and citizens. In these processes, software should not be understood as a merely neutral layer. Instead, it is becoming an agent that acts based on rule sets, organizational goals and ideological preferences and cultural assumptions set in its code. This means that software is becoming an enabling and disabling actor, that can steer interactions in the public domain. In addition, its architecture sets (or fails to set) the conditions for the organization of public values such as transparency and accountability. In other words, software code increasingly equals legal code. Both forms of code set conditions for society to function according to democratically set public values, the former executed by machines and the latter by humans. If indeed software should be understood as an active agent in democratic processes and the organization of markets and social interaction, what would this mean for the ways that public institutions deal with software design and procurement? That question was addressed in three rounds. @@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ Discussions in this round (as well as broader discussion taking place during the ### Values perspective -The design of software that fulfills a particular public or civic service -vs- the design of principles for public software as a basic infrastructure in society. +The design of software that fulfills a particular public or civic service vs. the design of principles for public software as a basic infrastructure in society. -Although definitions and interpretations vary, representatives of the civic tech sector present at the conference understand their field as using technology to enhance relations between people and government, or the design of software to empower citizens or civil society organizations in its internal relations, or its relations vis-à-vis governments. Through user centered design processes and iterative delivery practitioners in this field come to a better understanding of problems existing in civil society and design solutions for these problems. They do this by either appropriating off-the-shelf technologies such as social network or mapping software and open data repositories, or by creating new software or collecting new data sets. This approach can partly be understood as a tactical movement that is strongly influenced by a hacker’s ethic. It’s about collaboratively bending the use of existing technologies toward collectively set goals. Part of it is also more strategic, as some actors also seek to integrate this approach into the workings of existing (government) institutions, or seek to redefine relations between civil society and government. +Although definitions and interpretations vary, representatives of the civic tech sector present at the conference understand their field as using technology to enhance relations between people and government, or the design of software to empower citizens or civil society organizations in their internal relations, or their relations vis-à-vis governments. Through user centered design processes and iterative delivery, practitioners in this field come to a better understanding of problems existing in civil society and design solutions for these problems. They do this by either appropriating off-the-shelf technologies such as social network or mapping software and open data repositories, or by creating new software or collecting new data sets. This approach can partly be understood as a tactical movement that is strongly influenced by a hacker’s ethic. It’s about collaboratively bending the use of existing technologies toward collectively set goals. Part of it is also more strategic, as some actors also seek to integrate this approach into the workings of existing (government) institutions, or seek to redefine relations between civil society and government. However, to a far lesser extent does the community address the principles of software design as a fundamental infrastructural layer active in our network or platform societies. On what principles should the software enabling civic interactions be based? In this view, software is not just a tool (e.g. a mapping tool that displays citizen monitored air quality, or a tool that helps citizens report issues of concern to their political representatives). Rather, in this perspective, questions are raised about the principles of software operative in the public domain. How can software be designed so that it is legible and understandable for citizens, for instance with regard to its algorithms that sort data and prioritizes certain actors or actions over others? This shift from seeing software as a mere tool to software as a basic infrastructure and active agent in society is so far insufficiently developed. From cc0c39025dc5712388e62a630d46b03cfdecf909 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:25:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 08/10] proofing Bucharest --- workshops/bucharest.md | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/workshops/bucharest.md b/workshops/bucharest.md index 8aa5402..5d99504 100644 --- a/workshops/bucharest.md +++ b/workshops/bucharest.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ *This workshop took place at October 8th 16:00-17:30 at the [Code for All summit Heroes Of Tech](https://heroesoftech.com/) in Bucharest, Romania* -The *Smart Cities? Public Code!* project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. +The Smart Cities? Public Code! project aims to explore and develop the concept of public code. Public code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the public interest in mind. This means we need to look differently at the software developed for public tasks as compared to software for private tasks. At a minimum, we should guarantee that it is inclusive, usable, adaptive, open and sustainable. In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for public code are discussed with various actors in the field. How should we understand public code, what should we expect from it, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? @@ -14,19 +14,23 @@ In this workshop we: 1. Identify the current problems with software in public institutions. 2. Explore solutions: What can we do about this? Who can do it? -3. Discuss challenges: What is stopping us from implementing these solutions +3. Discuss challenges: What is stopping us from implementing these solutions? -The goal of this workshop is to further develop the concept of Public Code. How should we understand Public Code, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code. +The goal of this workshop is to further develop the concept of public code. How should we understand public code, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code? -Participants can include anyone interested in the application of IT in public institutions, and the safeguarding of public values in software procurement and development. Experience in city government is welcome but not required. +Participants can include anyone interested in the application of information technology (IT) in public institutions, and the safeguarding of public values in software procurement and development. Experience in city government is welcome but not required. This workshop is part of a series of events that will lead to a implementation guide for public software, a research agenda, and a consortium for future research. ## Introduction -The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the Heroes of Tech conference, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. As such Code for All is firmly embedded in an international scene around civic tech. In our workshop, the concept of public code was discussed in three rounds, each focusing on a particular question: what are the current problems around software in public institutions? What can we do about that? And what is stopping us from doing that? +The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the Heroes of Tech conference, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. As such Code for All is firmly embedded in an international scene around civic tech. -The workshop took off with a brief exploration of the current issues with software developed by or in public institutions. The point of departure is a structural shift towards a network of platform society, in which software is becoming an agent in the organizations of all sectors of society. Increasingly software can be understood as a basic infrastructure that underlies all facets of society, including the management of public resources and interactions between governments and citizens. In these processes, software should not be understood as a merely neutral layer. Instead, it is becoming an agent that acts based on rule sets, organizational goals and ideological preferences and cultural assumptions set in its code. This means that software is becoming an enabling and disabling actor, that can steer interactions in the public domain. In addition, its architecture sets (or fails to set) the conditions for the organization of public values such as transparency and accountability. In other words, software code increasingly equals legal code. Both forms of code set conditions for society to function according to democratically set public values, the former executed by machines and the latter by humans. +In our workshop, the concept of public code was discussed in three rounds, each focusing on a particular question: what are the current problems around software in public institutions? What can we do about that? And what is stopping us from doing that? + +The workshop took off with a brief exploration of the current issues with software developed by or in public institutions. The point of departure is a structural shift towards a network or platform society, in which software is becoming an agent in the organizations of all sectors of society. Increasingly software can be understood as a basic infrastructure that underlies all facets of society, including the management of public resources and interactions between governments and citizens. In these processes, software should not be understood as a merely neutral layer. + +Instead, it is becoming an agent that acts based on rule sets, organizational goals and ideological preferences and cultural assumptions set in its code. This means that software is becoming an enabling and disabling actor, that can steer interactions in the public domain. In addition, its architecture sets (or fails to set) the conditions for the organization of public values such as transparency and accountability. In other words, software code increasingly equals legal code. Both forms of code set conditions for society to function according to democratically set public values, the former executed by machines and the latter by humans. If indeed software should be understood as an active agent in democratic processes and the organization of markets and social interaction, what would this mean for the ways that public institutions deal with software design and procurement? That question was addressed in three rounds. @@ -40,25 +44,25 @@ The design of software that fulfills a particular public or civic service vs. th Although definitions and interpretations vary, representatives of the civic tech sector present at the conference understand their field as using technology to enhance relations between people and government, or the design of software to empower citizens or civil society organizations in their internal relations, or their relations vis-à-vis governments. Through user centered design processes and iterative delivery, practitioners in this field come to a better understanding of problems existing in civil society and design solutions for these problems. They do this by either appropriating off-the-shelf technologies such as social network or mapping software and open data repositories, or by creating new software or collecting new data sets. This approach can partly be understood as a tactical movement that is strongly influenced by a hacker’s ethic. It’s about collaboratively bending the use of existing technologies toward collectively set goals. Part of it is also more strategic, as some actors also seek to integrate this approach into the workings of existing (government) institutions, or seek to redefine relations between civil society and government. -However, to a far lesser extent does the community address the principles of software design as a fundamental infrastructural layer active in our network or platform societies. On what principles should the software enabling civic interactions be based? In this view, software is not just a tool (e.g. a mapping tool that displays citizen monitored air quality, or a tool that helps citizens report issues of concern to their political representatives). Rather, in this perspective, questions are raised about the principles of software operative in the public domain. How can software be designed so that it is legible and understandable for citizens, for instance with regard to its algorithms that sort data and prioritizes certain actors or actions over others? This shift from seeing software as a mere tool to software as a basic infrastructure and active agent in society is so far insufficiently developed. +However, to a far lesser extent does the community address the principles of software design as a fundamental infrastructural layer active in our network or platform societies. On what principles should the software enabling civic interactions be based? In this view, software is not just a tool (e.g. a mapping tool that displays citizen monitored air quality, or a tool that helps citizens report issues of concern to their political representatives). Rather, in this perspective, questions are raised about the principles of software operative in the public domain. How can software be designed so that it is legible and understandable for citizens, for instance with regard to its algorithms that sort data and prioritize certain actors or actions over others? This shift from seeing software as a mere tool to software as a basic infrastructure and active agent in society is so far insufficiently developed. -In our workshop a number of underlying values relevant for public software were articulated. According to participants, public software should be well documented and made legible to that both users as well as (potential) subjects of the code can understand its workings. So far, many discussions have focused on ‘open data’ as a way of making governments more transparent. However, in public software not just the data (which serve either as the input or output for computational and algorithmic processes) but those processes themselves should be transparent. This becomes more and more important as software is increasingly developed with AI or smart contracts that set priorities or enable or disable transactions. Citizens need to be able to inspect the workings of these processes. +In our workshop a number of underlying values relevant for public software were articulated. According to participants, public software should be well documented and made legible so that both users as well as (potential) subjects of the code can understand its workings. So far, many discussions have focused on ‘open data’ as a way of making governments more transparent. However, in public software not just the data (which serve either as the input or output for computational and algorithmic processes) but those processes themselves should be transparent. This becomes more and more important as software is increasingly developed with AI or smart contracts that set priorities or enable or disable transactions. Citizens need to be able to inspect the workings of these processes. -### Production perspective: Software as a product vs software as an ecology +### Production perspective: software as a product vs software as an ecology According to participants in our workshop, currently, many governments understand software as a product that they can buy as a one-off to solve a particular need. The whole procedure of procurement is based on these principles. Usually the government defines a particular issue or problem and, based on that, defines a number of requirements and specifications that are tendered to third party developers. Once developed, vendors often hand over the software package to the local government, either continuing the upkeep of the software through a service agreement, or alternatively handing over the management to government officers. Usability and user testing are often low priorities in the requirements and development cycle. -This ‘engineering approach’ in which specifications are set early in the process lacks a more iterative development cycle in which specifications can be set and reframed through various iterations of a design in collaboration between the client, users and designers. In addition, software development should be understood as a living process or as an ecology. Software needs to be able to continuously adapt to shifting contexts. In turn, developers need to be part of learning development communities in which they can exchange knowledge, insights and learnings. Current procurement practices and their attribution of time to the design of specific requirements often prevent both external contractors as well as government officials to take part in these communities. +This ‘engineering approach’ in which specifications are set early in the process lacks a more iterative development cycle in which specifications can be set and reframed through various iterations of a design in collaboration between the client, users and designers. In addition, software development should be understood as a living process or as an ecology. Software needs to be able to continuously adapt to shifting contexts. In turn, developers need to be part of learning development communities in which they can exchange knowledge, insights and learnings. Current procurement practices and their attribution of time to the design of specific requirements often prevent both external contractors as well as government officials from taking part in these communities. -Another problem is the ‘re-inventing the wheel’-syndrome. It is hard to develop software as open source that can be shared across cities. +Another problem is ‘re-inventing the wheel syndrome'. It is hard to develop software as open source that can be shared across cities. -Next, software procurement and development is mostly still approached like one might order some custom furniture for a municipal building. As a result, the initial round of engagements with digital infrastructure contacted under the rubric of Smart Cities were often onerous relationships with enterprise software corporations. These contracts often locked cities into long-term, expensive software systems which controlled access to the cities’ own data and decision-making processes. Often the very function of governance was outsourced to 3rd party providers and city governments learned hard lessons about losing control of operations and knowledge that they thought was firmly under their own oversight. Increasingly, cities are learning that commissioning the software that runs their internal functions is more like making decisions about zoning or taxation, some of the most political and important decisions a city can make. However, this insight is currently not structurally embraced in procurement practices. +Next, software procurement and development is mostly still approached like one might order some custom furniture for a municipal building. As a result, the initial round of engagements with digital infrastructure contacted under the rubric of smart cities were often onerous relationships with enterprise software corporations. These contracts often locked cities into long-term, expensive software systems which controlled access to the cities’ own data and decision-making processes. Often the very function of governance was outsourced to 3rd party providers and city governments learned hard lessons about losing control of operations and knowledge that they thought was firmly under their own oversight. Increasingly, cities are learning that commissioning the software that runs their internal functions is more like making decisions about zoning or taxation - some of the most political and important decisions a city can make. However, this insight is currently not structurally embraced in procurement practices. ## What we can do about these problems ### Values perspective -We need to advocate a new vision and understanding of software as a basic infrastructure in our societies and as an active agent in the shaping of the public domain. From a values perspective, it means that the articulation of public values in relation to software should become a standard aspect of policy at a generic level. Such a values perspective should also become part of the development of concrete software projects. A ‘society-centric’-design perspective needs to put in place next to or on top of a ‘human-centered’ one. +We need to advocate a new vision and understanding of software as a basic infrastructure in our societies and as an active agent in the shaping of the public domain. From a values perspective, it means that the articulation of public values in relation to software should become a standard aspect of policy at a generic level. Such a values perspective should also become part of the development of concrete software projects. A society-centered design perspective needs to be put in place next to or on top of a human-centered one. ### Production perspective @@ -67,10 +71,11 @@ From a more concrete production perspective, various strategic approaches were m * The development of open source government software * Setting up exchange markets for the reuse of open source * Development of an international learning community around public software -* Scale-up through cooperation: cities can cooperate and attain scale-advantages by collectively developing solutions +* Scale-up through cooperation: cities can cooperate and attain scale advantages by collectively developing solutions * Governments taking back agency in the development of software: not outsourcing everything, but developing knowledge in their own institutions -* Change procurement to make iterative design processes in co-creation between developers, users and society at large easier. -* Guarding the streams of data that are being created by, as well as those required for, the software. Create a ‘datasheet’ taking into account which information is considered when the software automates its ruling. +* Change procurement to make iterative design processes in co-creation between developers, users and society at large easier +* Guarding the streams of data that are being created by, as well as those required for, the software +* Create a ‘datasheet’ taking into account which information is considered when the software automates its ruling ## What is stopping us from doing this @@ -82,11 +87,11 @@ Entrenched interests in the vendor ecosystem (and in some countries also corrupt ### Production perspective -An open source approach or public software-framework are not seen as urgent. Even though the current procurement model often fails, these failures do not have political consequences. People more or less expect software development to be complex and to not live up to the expectations they have. Additionally, the consequences of failures in public software more often than not touch the disempowered, whereas software companies will get their bills paid anyways. +An open source approach or public software framework are not seen as urgent. Even though the current procurement model often fails, these failures do not have political consequences. People more or less expect software development to be complex and to not live up to the expectations they have. Additionally, the consequences of failures in public software more often than not touch the disempowered, whereas software companies will get their bills paid anyways. -An additional problem is that open source often does not have a ‘help desk.’ Who can you call when something does not work? Or who can you sue if things do not live up to expectations? There is a lack of a broader open source network / community that can be recognized as a reliable and durable partner, setting frameworks and support networks that can guarantee long term quality and support. +An additional problem is that open source often does not have a ‘help desk.’ Who can you call when something does not work? Or who can you sue if things do not live up to expectations? There is a lack of a broader open source network/community that can be recognized as a reliable and durable partner, setting frameworks and support networks that can guarantee long term quality and support. -In some countries there is a believe that software development should be left to the market, that entrepreneurialism should be stimulated and that governments should not be involved in this sector. The consequence is that government does not employ officers with the skills to judge proposals by market parties or understand what exactly is being sold and what the consequences of acquisition and implementation would be. +In some countries there is a belief that software development should be left to the market, that entrepreneurialism should be stimulated and that governments should not be involved in this sector. The consequence is that government does not employ officers with the skills to judge proposals by market parties or understand what exactly is being sold and what the consequences of acquisition and implementation would be. Procurement is overly complex and prescriptive. @@ -99,17 +104,19 @@ Public software as we have been using it is currently referring to various theme * The ontological understanding of software as an infrastructural layer in society that can be understood as a platform and/or an actor. Software is a platform in that its code incorporates particular goals and ideological or cultural views that set opportunities and boundaries for societal actors (in a way that a law or constitution does). It is an actor in that it also executes policy through algorithmic governance. * A set of standards or a licensing scheme that guarantees public values in software production (e.g. legibility and transparency of decision making). * A next level open source model that allows governments to share building blocks or modules of software that adhere to public software standards. -* A values-in-design or a participatory design framework for the production of software in learning communities that iteratively co-creates software for the management of various services in the public domain; understanding software as an ecology, and applying not a human-centered design, but a society centered design. +* A values-in-design or a participatory design framework for the production of software in learning communities that iteratively co-creates software for the management of various services in the public domain; understanding software as an ecology, and applying not a human-centered design, but a society-centered design. * A normative ethos: all actors involved in the production or management of public resources should embrace an approach to software and platforms that put public values first, and efficiency or commercial value production second. This goes beyond the mere standards with regard to e.g. privacy or legibility. -We may have to better articulate this stack of approaches, or perhaps choose a focus. Or we may have to better articulate the logic between these layers. That could begin with an ontological understanding of software as infrastructure. That would lead to a normative ethos in which this infrastructural layer should be developed from a public values perspective. Which would lead to a particular design framework, prompting questions, such as “how do we do this?”, and answers, such as “through a values-in-design perspective, learning communities and a set of standards.” The outcome could then be an open source-market place for these technologies. Do we want to tell this whole story? Or do we want to focus on particular aspects? Which of these layers is the focus of the ‘public software’ concept? So far our interest have been wavering between these layers. In the workshop we started off with the goal to discuss tech questions such as “what should be the specifications of public code?” But we discussed social issues such as illiteracy in governments, the lack of an 'ecology' model for software development, and the need for a society-centered design perspective. +We may have to better articulate this stack of approaches, or perhaps choose a focus. Or we may have to better articulate the logic between these layers. That could begin with an ontological understanding of software as infrastructure. That would lead to a normative ethos in which this infrastructural layer should be developed from a public values perspective. Which would lead to a particular design framework, prompting questions, such as “how do we do this?”, and answers, such as “through a values-in-design perspective, learning communities and a set of standards.” The outcome could then be an open source-market place for these technologies. Do we want to tell this whole story? Or do we want to focus on particular aspects? Which of these layers is the focus of the ‘public software’ concept? + +So far our interest have been wavering between these layers. In the workshop we started off with the goal to discuss tech questions such as “what should be the specifications of public code?” But we discussed social issues such as illiteracy in governments, the lack of an 'ecology' model for software development, and the need for a society-centered design perspective. -Another unclarity in our use of public software is its precise domain of application. Is it about inserting a layer of public values in all software (including commercial), like a privacy law or GDPR standard? Or are we mainly concerned with software that operates in or manages a public domain or resource such as electricity provision, the organization of transport, government-citizen interactions, or even more limited: is it a framework for government-technology? +Another unclarity in our use of public software is its precise domain of application. Is it about inserting a layer of public values in all software (including commercial), like a privacy law or GDPR standard? Or are we mainly concerned with software that operates in or manages a public domain or resource such as electricity provision, the organization of transport, government-citizen interactions, or even more limited: is it a framework for government technology? -### The 'Smart Citizen' +### The 'smart citizen' We started off by positioning public software against the black box proprietary smart city approach of the city as a service, wanting to contribute to the transition from proprietary smart city software to the design and employment of ‘public code’ that can be deployed by cities in their operational and policy processes in order to better safeguard public values. -In addition, we have now found that we also have to define ourselves in relation to the ‘smart citizen’ perspective of civic tech. Civic tech takes a more tactical perspective whereas we take a more fundamental and ontological approach. Civic tech also runs the risk of becoming solutionist, somehow embracing a silicon valley or web 2.0 ethos of appropriating existing tech to solve civil societies’ issues, without a deeper rethinking of the underlying principles in these tools. It is not that we are against civic tech, or smart cities, but both need an underlying public software approach. +In addition, we have now found that we also have to define ourselves in relation to the ‘smart citizen’ perspective of civic tech. Civic tech takes a more tactical perspective whereas we take a more fundamental and ontological approach. Civic tech also runs the risk of becoming solutionist, somehow embracing a Silicon Valley or Web 2.0 ethos of appropriating existing tech to solve civil societies’ issues, without a deeper rethinking of the underlying principles in these tools. It is not that we are against civic tech, or smart cities, but both need an underlying public software approach. ## What we can do next From d401cfe1344eb76d3ce6fb114b3df3cdd7689b7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:25:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 09/10] general styling --- index.md | 2 +- workshops/amsterdam.md | 2 +- workshops/barcelona.md | 12 ++++++------ workshops/index.md | 4 ++-- 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.md b/index.md index 6219767..439239c 100644 --- a/index.md +++ b/index.md @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ The city of Amsterdam can learn from international stakeholders and also present | Report Workshop 3 | AUAS and VURB | | | [Guide for the Deployment of Public Software](http://standard.publiccode.net/) | VURB | | | Network Overview (index of relevant parties) | VURB | | -| Research agenda | AUAS | | +| [Research agenda](research-agenda.md) | AUAS | | July 2019 | [Final Presentation Public Event](https://www.meetup.com/DataLab-Amsterdam/events/260303655/) | AUAS and VURB | 18 April 2019 | ## Research plan diff --git a/workshops/amsterdam.md b/workshops/amsterdam.md index 13e4724..4b20a93 100644 --- a/workshops/amsterdam.md +++ b/workshops/amsterdam.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ A third workshop was organized in Amsterdam in November 2018, at the Amsterdam U ## Why is public code important? -The third workshop started with a reiteration of the various arguments necessitating the introduction of the public code concept. The main argument is that the status of software in urban governance is changing. Increasingly it is becoming a fundamental infrastructure in a city’s operations and the interactions between citizens and governments, as well as a major force in the management of common resources. Software then is not just a commodity that can be ordered from a catalog like a desk or even a word processing suite. Increasingly it plays a role in the execution, monitoring and enforcement of city policies. In this process it is not just an ‘executor’ of policy, but increasingly software is set to play a role as a deciding actor, for instance when algorithms play a role in deciding which districts need extra policing or social services, which citizens are eligible for extra support or which citizens’ activities should be further scrutinized. In other words, software is now moving into a place where policy is active. +The third workshop started with a reiteration of the various arguments necessitating the introduction of the public code concept. The main argument is that the status of software in urban governance is changing. Increasingly it is becoming a fundamental infrastructure in a city’s operations and the interactions between citizens and governments, as well as a major force in the management of common resources. Software then is not just a commodity that can be ordered from a catalog like a desk or even a word processing suite. Increasingly it plays a role in the execution, monitoring and enforcement of city policies. In this process it is not just an ‘executor’ of policy, but increasingly software is set to play a role as a deciding actor, for instance when algorithms play a role in deciding which districts need extra policing or social services, which citizens are eligible for extra support or which citizens’ activities should be further scrutinized. In other words, software is now moving into a place where policy is active. That means that computer code has to comply with a series of principles related to democratic governance. It needs to be understandable for its constituents, transparent in its execution, and both politicians as well as citizens and civil society organizations should be able to hold it accountable. Furthermore, it should comply with a series of other public values. For instance, its workings should be inclusive and non-discriminatory in character. This means that software cannot be a black box, ordered from outside companies. Instead, cities need technological sovereignty that allows them to control city software, just like they are able to control policy that is legally formulated in laws. At the same time citizens need this software to be transparent, a nascent ‘platform society’ should honor a series of digital citizens’ rights. diff --git a/workshops/barcelona.md b/workshops/barcelona.md index 17ab6a1..59b7ae4 100644 --- a/workshops/barcelona.md +++ b/workshops/barcelona.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ In three international workshops, the context, challenges and opportunities for The first workshop took place in Bucharest, during the conference Heroes of Tech, organized by Code for All, an international network of organizations supporting each other to empower citizens to meaningfully engage in the public sphere and have a positive impact on their communities. -The second workshop took place in Barcelona, during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. +The second workshop took place in Barcelona, during the Smart City World Expo. We gathered a small group of participants from public institutions, NGOs and companies working in the space to build on the findings of the first workshop and consider some further issues. ## What are the current problems with digital technology in cities? @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ As this workshop happened in the shadow of the Smart City Expo, many of the part Often in their initial deployment, these software packages succeed in solving many of the most egregious issues that cities have around the management of infrastructure, resources and information. But fairly quickly into the engagement, municipal governments realise that they are effectively trapped in a system of ever-increasing licensing fees, proprietary data stores to which they have to pay to access their own data, and inflexible solutions that cannot be adapted by their own technology teams to respond effectively to local problems. -Part of the reason cities find themselves in the situation is due to a long-standing mindset about their relationship with technology. For decades, cities have treated the adoption of technology, and ICT in general, as an exotic technical task, far separated from the core activity of governance and policy production. Many key decision makers around technological deployment in municipal governments have little or no literacy about the implications of various architectural choices involving the deployment of SaaS solutions, etc. Customization work is often outsourced to contractors who have no long term relationship with municipalities, and thus, the knowledge is lost between engagements and municipal actors are left at the mercy of the high cost consulting rates of the initial software providers. +Part of the reason cities find themselves in the situation is due to a long-standing mindset about their relationship with technology. For decades, cities have treated the adoption of technology, and ICT in general, as an exotic technical task, far separated from the core activity of governance and policy production. Many key decision makers around technological deployment in municipal governments have little or no literacy about the implications of various architectural choices involving the deployment of SaaS solutions, etc. Customization work is often outsourced to contractors who have no long term relationship with municipalities, and thus, the knowledge is lost between engagements and municipal actors are left at the mercy of the high cost consulting rates of the initial software providers. ### Information @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Part of the reason cities find themselves in the situation is due to a long-stan ## What can we do about these problems? And who can? -Almost any solution to this problem begins with cultural transformation and education within the body of civil servants that make up the core of municipal function. The key issue is that policy makers realize that their work will slowly become a directly digital process, and that the fundamental work of municipal government will involve the production of software in support of policy implementation. From this perspective, the process of producing software becomes a core activity of the municipality. +Almost any solution to this problem begins with cultural transformation and education within the body of civil servants that make up the core of municipal function. The key issue is that policy makers realize that their work will slowly become a directly digital process, and that the fundamental work of municipal government will involve the production of software in support of policy implementation. From this perspective, the process of producing software becomes a core activity of the municipality. Much of our discussion here centred around the creation of new roles and discourses bringing stakeholders within government up to speed on their new responsibilities as codebase custodians. The idea of reforming general education and education within government to include public digital literacy was put forward. Also among workshop participants, much concern was expressed that the general public would also need to be kept informed of the changing relationship between government and software. This is where the workshop really began to delve into the concept of public code as a resource that would address many of the concerns that the general public have about the use of technology in government, in that public code is transparent, inclusive and adaptive to the needs of local citizens. @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Much of our discussion here centred around the creation of new roles and discour * Reform of education to include public digital literacy * Deconstructing the smart city * Techno-legal framework for privacy protection and data-extraction prevention -* Make public-private collaborations more attractive. New revenue models? +* Make public-private collaborations more attractive. New revenue models? * Celebrate risk-taking * Provide outreach from municipalities to non-tech industries about how they can benefit and participate * Shared vocabulary @@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ Much of our discussion here centred around the creation of new roles and discour ## What is stopping us from doing this? -The workshop participants agreed that the number one block to this type of transformation was almost entirely a lack of effective communication about the drawbacks of commercial software licensing as it currently stands, and the opportunity for municipalities to collaborate in public code development and maintenance. Problems range from the inability to quantify the economic advantages of public collaboration, to the inability to communicate the real changes necessary in technological infrastructure in a tactical way, rather than as an abstract appeal to high-level principles. Larger issues in general software development, such as making code and its processes legible and starting from user concerns in the design process, also play a role in gaining early positive feedback and momentum in public coding projects. +The workshop participants agreed that the number one block to this type of transformation was almost entirely a lack of effective communication about the drawbacks of commercial software licensing as it currently stands, and the opportunity for municipalities to collaborate in public code development and maintenance. Problems range from the inability to quantify the economic advantages of public collaboration, to the inability to communicate the real changes necessary in technological infrastructure in a tactical way, rather than as an abstract appeal to high-level principles. Larger issues in general software development, such as making code and its processes legible and starting from user concerns in the design process, also play a role in gaining early positive feedback and momentum in public coding projects. -In general the consensus was that civil servants are naturally risk-averse and fairly conservative in changes to their process. Most participants considered this a good thing, as it provides continuity in the face of rapidly changing politics on the higher levels of municipal government. Thus, the case that one must make to induce an appetite for digital transformation to public code development processes across the board needs to be grounded in very sound economic and policy arguments, as well as providing evidence that the agency of the civil servants themselves will not be eroded by the arrival of new digital tools. +In general the consensus was that civil servants are naturally risk-averse and fairly conservative in changes to their process. Most participants considered this a good thing, as it provides continuity in the face of rapidly changing politics on the higher levels of municipal government. Thus, the case that one must make to induce an appetite for digital transformation to public code development processes across the board needs to be grounded in very sound economic and policy arguments, as well as providing evidence that the agency of the civil servants themselves will not be eroded by the arrival of new digital tools. * Lack of literacy in digital rights of policy makers * Lack of understanding of the need for this by stakeholders diff --git a/workshops/index.md b/workshops/index.md index 15c363e..c085db0 100644 --- a/workshops/index.md +++ b/workshops/index.md @@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ This series of workshops is organized by a consortium made out of the Foundation ## Workshops -* October 8: [The Heroes Of Tech (Code4All summit) București](bucharest.md) +* October 8: [The Heroes Of Tech (Code4All summit), București](bucharest.md) * November 16: [Smart City Expo World Congress, Barcelona](barcelona.md) * November 20: [City of Amsterdam](amsterdam.md) ## Goal -The goals of these workshop is to further develop the concept of Public Code. How should we understand Public Code, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of Public Code. +The goals of these workshop is to further develop the concept of public code. How should we understand public code, and how can we create it? What kind of technological and institutional arrangements are needed to shift towards the production of public code. This workshop is part of a series of events that will lead to a implementation guide for public software, a research agenda, and a consortium for future research From 8925c5bec38e0a13a32b255523495131cfc4a492 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ElenaFdR Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:37:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] delinting --- research-agenda.md | 47 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ workshops/bucharest.md | 14 +++++-------- workshops/index.md | 2 +- 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) diff --git a/research-agenda.md b/research-agenda.md index 154cbb0..be01144 100644 --- a/research-agenda.md +++ b/research-agenda.md @@ -30,15 +30,15 @@ The first workshop took place at the gov-tech and civic-tech centered Internatio These workshops addressed three main questions: -1. What are the current problems with software in public institutions / the public domain? -2. What can be done about these issues, and which actors could play what roles in that process? +1. What are the current problems with software in public institutions / the public domain? +2. What can be done about these issues, and which actors could play what roles in that process? 3. What are the challenges that may prevent the implementation of these solutions? -During these workshops three different types of questions emerged. +During these workshops three different types of questions emerged. -The first is a further philosophical exploration of the concept. What are the fundamentals of public code, what values should it address and how are these related to core principles of democratic society? +The first is a further philosophical exploration of the concept. What are the fundamentals of public code, what values should it address and how are these related to core principles of democratic society? -A second set of research questions seeks to transfer these values to a set of concrete design principles on which public code should be based: what could a standard for public code look like, and which actors could take which roles in the implementation of these standards? And what are the boundaries of public code? +A second set of research questions seeks to transfer these values to a set of concrete design principles on which public code should be based: what could a standard for public code look like, and which actors could take which roles in the implementation of these standards? And what are the boundaries of public code? A third and last set of questions addressed the production ecosystem for public code. What kind of institutions, actors, roles and business models could establish the conditions for a flourishing ecosystem for the design, exchange and operationalization of public code? @@ -50,11 +50,11 @@ In recent years various governments (both at local and EU-level), civil society ### How to understand the role of code in society -From an academic approach, a number of theoretical perspectives have been introduced. In a post-phenomenological philosophy of technology, the mediating role of technologies is foregrounded to bring out the implicit politics of technological artefacts. Sub-disciplines such as software studies and platform studies as well as broader approaches such as actor-network theory (ANT) and science and technology studies (STS) bring out the political, economic and cultural principles operating within both computer code and the contexts through which code is produced and exploited. +From an academic approach, a number of theoretical perspectives have been introduced. In a post-phenomenological philosophy of technology, the mediating role of technologies is foregrounded to bring out the implicit politics of technological artefacts. Sub-disciplines such as software studies and platform studies as well as broader approaches such as actor-network theory (ANT) and science and technology studies (STS) bring out the political, economic and cultural principles operating within both computer code and the contexts through which code is produced and exploited. -The field of law has also taken an interest in understanding the role of software in the process of legislation, and the affordances of software and technological systems for the governance of democratic societies as well as the challenges they entail. +The field of law has also taken an interest in understanding the role of software in the process of legislation, and the affordances of software and technological systems for the governance of democratic societies as well as the challenges they entail. -Together, they have started to lead to a new orientation on the role of software in democratic societies and they have started to produce key concepts on which further development of public code can be based. These orientations contrast with more quantitative rational perspectives of code as a mechanic translation of the will of decision makers. Similarly, some of these orientations can also be understood as a critical reflection on rational choice models originating in fields like business studies and economics. +Together, they have started to lead to a new orientation on the role of software in democratic societies and they have started to produce key concepts on which further development of public code can be based. These orientations contrast with more quantitative rational perspectives of code as a mechanic translation of the will of decision makers. Similarly, some of these orientations can also be understood as a critical reflection on rational choice models originating in fields like business studies and economics. ### Basic principles of software operative in the public domain @@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ In the workshops, three central themes have arisen in these normative approaches For the propagation of public code, these normative approaches and their concepts can be further developed. Policy with regard to public code implementation, production ecosystems and the actual code written should be based on a firm set of principles, concepts and understandings. These can play a role in societal debates and political discussions, and function as a base for the design and implementation of public code. -As mentioned above, this concerns both a further conceptual exploration of the status of software as a performative actor in society, as well as a set of values that relate software development to the core principles of democracy. Research here could be organized deductively as conceptual enquiry into values and concepts, or inductively, starting by mapping and aggregating core values and approaches in existing agendas, manifestos, projects, white papers etc. that relate democratic values to software development. +As mentioned above, this concerns both a further conceptual exploration of the status of software as a performative actor in society, as well as a set of values that relate software development to the core principles of democracy. Research here could be organized deductively as conceptual enquiry into values and concepts, or inductively, starting by mapping and aggregating core values and approaches in existing agendas, manifestos, projects, white papers etc. that relate democratic values to software development. -It could also be studied empirically by analyzing the ways various existing instantiations of software have steered democratic processes. And vice versa: how democratic representations such as city councils and governments are trying to establish democratic control over technological policy, such as through procurement conditions. How tech policy is politicizing across current ideological and political cleavages is also an area worth exploring further. +It could also be studied empirically by analyzing the ways various existing instantiations of software have steered democratic processes. And vice versa: how democratic representations such as city councils and governments are trying to establish democratic control over technological policy, such as through procurement conditions. How tech policy is politicizing across current ideological and political cleavages is also an area worth exploring further. And finally, a speculative approach – testing out various possible future policy and legislative directions and visions by designing and deploying probes and prototypes. @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ And finally, a speculative approach – testing out various possible future poli The second research direction that emerged from the workshops was how to make the new understanding of software in the public domain concrete for software development and implementation in the public domain. Governments, software developers, citizens and other actors need concrete guidelines that translate the normative principles emerging in the debate on the role of software in democratic societies into a set of design principles. These can also be used to hold the functioning of software accountable. One option here is to formalise normative principles into a standard and certification system that governments and designers can follow. -The concept of public code does just that. It is meant as a set of characteristics and design principles for software that ensure that the design and implementation of software in the public domain is congruent with a set of basic principles of democratic societies. +The concept of public code does just that. It is meant as a set of characteristics and design principles for software that ensure that the design and implementation of software in the public domain is congruent with a set of basic principles of democratic societies. During this research project, the Foundation for Public Code developed a first version for such a Standard for Public Code. It was derived from input in the workshops as well as from the concepts and principles that have surfaced in the various manifestos and ethical guidelines developed by local, national and supranational governments, as well as by think tanks on ethics. In April 2019 a first version (0.1.0) was publicly presented, with an open invitation to contribute to the further development of the Standard. @@ -82,17 +82,17 @@ During this research project, the Foundation for Public Code developed a first v ### Formal procedures for establishing a standard -To further this process, three core themes need to be explored further. +To further this process, three core themes need to be explored further. -First, a formal procedure is needed for the governance of such a standard. How and by whom can new values be added to the standard, how can amendments be made, and can particular values be taken off the standard? The process is currently an open one, where suggestions are requested by all stakeholders. +First, a formal procedure is needed for the governance of such a standard. How and by whom can new values be added to the standard, how can amendments be made, and can particular values be taken off the standard? The process is currently an open one, where suggestions are requested by all stakeholders. But at a certain point in time, this needs to be formalized in a governance model describing particular criteria, roles and rights for constituents to contribute to the development of the standard. What should such a procedure look like? And what type of organizations (e.g. the W3c or Mozilla Foundation) could set an example? ### Setting values and attributes -Second, the format for the values and attributes needs to be developed further. How can values be operationalized and ‘tested’ for? +Second, the format for the values and attributes needs to be developed further. How can values be operationalized and ‘tested’ for? -One aspect of this is the further development of attributes or a range of values. For example, is certification for public code a binary process (it either matches or does not match the criteria), or are the gradations, e.g. particular levels of publicness in the code that can be achieved. +One aspect of this is the further development of attributes or a range of values. For example, is certification for public code a binary process (it either matches or does not match the criteria), or are the gradations, e.g. particular levels of publicness in the code that can be achieved. Currently, criteria in the standard are described according to the [Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) as defined by The Internet Engineering Task Force, whereas evaluation for each criterion of the standard is explicated in a descriptive ‘How to Test’ section. These approaches need to be evaluated, further developed and translated into a more formal protocol for certification and validation of public code. @@ -104,15 +104,12 @@ Third, an issue that came up in all three workshops was that of the boundaries o 2. The domains to which public code can be applied. Is public code restricted to government software, and interactions between governments and citizens? Or is it a standard that can be applied (or even made mandatory) to all kinds of software that somehow plays a core role in the public domain? E.g. if commercial social networks are found to be crucial civic infrastructures for social organization and the public debate, does that mean that they too should (be forced to) embrace the principles of public code? - 3. The types of values public code should articulate. One of the discussions was to what extent Public Code-certification should be limited to Citizen’s Digital Rights that are mostly procedural and related to basic foundations of democracy, such as accountability, transparency and privacy. Should Public Code also include a set of collective public values such as solidarity, equality of opportunities, emancipation or ecological sustainability? - 4. The applicability of the concept in terms of production versus execution: is public code just concerned with a set of criteria that a particular software suite could be evaluated against when executed (e.g. is the working of the algorithms transparent)? Or should it extend principles of democratic governance to the production of software set in particular use contexts (e.g. public code always needs to developed in co-creation with all stakeholders, including non-users that will be affected by its implementation)? The conceptual inquiry described above as well as evaluations of current projects could be used to further develop the boundaries of public code as a concept as well as the procedures for its actualization through a standard and formalization of its stewardship. - ## Research direction 3: a production ecosystem for public code The principle of software as a vital element of public infrastructure requires a shift in the production and development of software. No longer can it be considered a commodity that can be ordered from a catalogue, like a piece of office furniture or even a word processing suite. If code == code, the development of both forms of code should integrated, rather than one following the other sequentially. At the same time the development of software code should be based on the principles of technological sovereignty as well as public values and citizen’s digital rights. @@ -121,9 +118,9 @@ During the workshops, participants claimed that current practices of procurement The emergence of such a new ecosystem is complex. In the workshops and initial explorations of the research team, various aspects were brought up that need further inquiry and development. -### The entanglement of policy and code +### The entanglement of policy and code -If software plays an important part in the execution and monitoring of policy, these two sorts of code need to be designed in an integrated way, rather than one following the other. In other words: computer code should not be understood as a mere ‘translation’ of legal code. Rather, the design of legal code should already take possible operationalizations in computer code into account. +If software plays an important part in the execution and monitoring of policy, these two sorts of code need to be designed in an integrated way, rather than one following the other. In other words: computer code should not be understood as a mere ‘translation’ of legal code. Rather, the design of legal code should already take possible operationalizations in computer code into account. For example, in the Netherlands, [the Council of State has recommended such an integrated approach](https://www.raadvanstate.nl/@112661/w04-18-0230/). This means that computer code developers should be part of the legislative process, and that laws and their explanatory memoranda should reflect to what extent operationalization through computer code is desirable, what public values are involved and how they can be mitigated. @@ -133,7 +130,7 @@ This also means that documentation of computer code operative in the public doma An important aspect of public code is a desire for ‘shareability’. Ideally, applications for government services that are developed in one city should be easily implementable in other cities. This makes the production of public software more cost-efficient while at the same time opening up resources that allow for more robust and extensive development compared to a situation in which software is only developed for one constituency. -From a software engineering perspective, this requires a number of conditions. First, it leads to the question of to what extent public code would require a meta-framework from a software engineering perspective. Such a framework could embody basic citizen’s digital rights, and provide basic functionalities such as ‘public-code proof’ identification systems. At the same time, it would enable the development of various services and applications by third parties. +From a software engineering perspective, this requires a number of conditions. First, it leads to the question of to what extent public code would require a meta-framework from a software engineering perspective. Such a framework could embody basic citizen’s digital rights, and provide basic functionalities such as ‘public-code proof’ identification systems. At the same time, it would enable the development of various services and applications by third parties. An example is the [common ground framework](https://vng.nl/samen-organiseren/common-ground) currently under discussion by the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities). This framework allows for modular development of applications building on a particular organization of services and datasets. Second, on the level of individual applications, ‘shareability’ entails a design structure that includes easily identifiable variables that can be adjusted to local situations – or changes in policy. @@ -143,8 +140,7 @@ According to participants in our workshop, many governments still regard softwar This ‘engineering approach’, in which specifications are set early in the process, lacks a more iterative development cycle in which specifications can be set and reframed through various iterations of a design in collaboration between the client, users and designers. Software development should be understood as a living process or as an ecology. It needs to be able to continuously adapt to shifting contexts. In turn, developers need to be part of learning development communities in which they can exchange knowledge, insights and learnings. Current procurement practices and their attribution of time to the design of specific requirements often prevent both external contractors as well as government officials from taking part in these communities. -This means that the system for procurement and software design should be partially rethought. One suggestion in the workshops was to move to outcome-based tenders or service-level based tenders in which the problem is described, rather than the solution. In all of the workshops, a need was articulated to develop software in an agile, open and transparent way. - +This means that the system for procurement and software design should be partially rethought. One suggestion in the workshops was to move to outcome-based tenders or service-level based tenders in which the problem is described, rather than the solution. In all of the workshops, a need was articulated to develop software in an agile, open and transparent way. ### Distribution, stewardship and support @@ -172,7 +168,7 @@ The concept of public code builds on earlier attempts to create open source ecos This research agenda addresses issues and themes that were brought up during [three exploratory workshops](https://smartcities.publiccode.net/) around the concept of public code, as well as initial explorations of the theme by the research team. It serves to give guidance to directions and themes for further research and development of the early stage concept of public code. -This further research can take many directions. On the one hand, it can serve as a starting point for a more general further exploration of the role that software has started to play in the shaping of the public domain in democratic societies. This would entail the further development of normative frameworks as well as ecosystems for the production of software that ensure that the development and actualization of software in policy strengthens democracy rather than undermining it. On the other hand, this project has launched a Foundation and Standard for Public Code as one possible instantiation for such a values and stewardship framework. +This further research can take many directions. On the one hand, it can serve as a starting point for a more general further exploration of the role that software has started to play in the shaping of the public domain in democratic societies. This would entail the further development of normative frameworks as well as ecosystems for the production of software that ensure that the development and actualization of software in policy strengthens democracy rather than undermining it. On the other hand, this project has launched a Foundation and Standard for Public Code as one possible instantiation for such a values and stewardship framework. In its present form this agenda mainly reflects the outcomes of three workshops with stakeholders in this subject matter and it does not pretend to be exhaustive, either in depth or breadth of the field. A number of the themes brought up here have already been taken up by various actors, albeit so far mostly not from the perspective of public code as an integral concept bringing these various areas of research together. @@ -183,6 +179,3 @@ The perspective of Fundamentals of public code requires further conceptual inqui With regard to the Standard for Public Code, future activities should concern the exploration of institutional arrangements through which the fundamentals can be translated into principles and evaluative frameworks for certification. Through these arrangements, stakeholders should start to discuss and evaluate the first version of the standard, and explore further development of its sub-concepts and criteria. Research into a Production ecosystem for public code could center on various aspects, both in the form of pilots as in the establishment of more structured and institutionalized arrangements. It concerns, amongst others, exploration of business and license models, production cultures, as well as the actual software engineering, architecture and design around concrete pilot projects. - - - diff --git a/workshops/bucharest.md b/workshops/bucharest.md index 5d99504..5aa0ded 100644 --- a/workshops/bucharest.md +++ b/workshops/bucharest.md @@ -58,13 +58,11 @@ Another problem is ‘re-inventing the wheel syndrome'. It is hard to develop so Next, software procurement and development is mostly still approached like one might order some custom furniture for a municipal building. As a result, the initial round of engagements with digital infrastructure contacted under the rubric of smart cities were often onerous relationships with enterprise software corporations. These contracts often locked cities into long-term, expensive software systems which controlled access to the cities’ own data and decision-making processes. Often the very function of governance was outsourced to 3rd party providers and city governments learned hard lessons about losing control of operations and knowledge that they thought was firmly under their own oversight. Increasingly, cities are learning that commissioning the software that runs their internal functions is more like making decisions about zoning or taxation - some of the most political and important decisions a city can make. However, this insight is currently not structurally embraced in procurement practices. -## What we can do about these problems - -### Values perspective +## What we can do about these problems: values perspective We need to advocate a new vision and understanding of software as a basic infrastructure in our societies and as an active agent in the shaping of the public domain. From a values perspective, it means that the articulation of public values in relation to software should become a standard aspect of policy at a generic level. Such a values perspective should also become part of the development of concrete software projects. A society-centered design perspective needs to be put in place next to or on top of a human-centered one. -### Production perspective +## What we can do about these problems: production perspective From a more concrete production perspective, various strategic approaches were mentioned: @@ -77,15 +75,13 @@ From a more concrete production perspective, various strategic approaches were m * Guarding the streams of data that are being created by, as well as those required for, the software * Create a ‘datasheet’ taking into account which information is considered when the software automates its ruling -## What is stopping us from doing this - -### Values perspective +## What is stopping us from doing this: values perspective So far there has been a lack of understanding of software as an active agent and basic infrastructure at a political level. And whereas commercial software developers and platform companies have large sales forces and lobby teams, there is only limited lobby power for open source or public code perspectives. Additionally, there is no public infrastructure for the support and development of open source communities (which exists for things like public broadcasting). Entrenched interests in the vendor ecosystem (and in some countries also corruption) are not helping to create a broader consciousness about the implications of software for the public domain. -### Production perspective +## What is stopping us from doing this: production perspective An open source approach or public software framework are not seen as urgent. Even though the current procurement model often fails, these failures do not have political consequences. People more or less expect software development to be complex and to not live up to the expectations they have. Additionally, the consequences of failures in public software more often than not touch the disempowered, whereas software companies will get their bills paid anyways. @@ -107,7 +103,7 @@ Public software as we have been using it is currently referring to various theme * A values-in-design or a participatory design framework for the production of software in learning communities that iteratively co-creates software for the management of various services in the public domain; understanding software as an ecology, and applying not a human-centered design, but a society-centered design. * A normative ethos: all actors involved in the production or management of public resources should embrace an approach to software and platforms that put public values first, and efficiency or commercial value production second. This goes beyond the mere standards with regard to e.g. privacy or legibility. -We may have to better articulate this stack of approaches, or perhaps choose a focus. Or we may have to better articulate the logic between these layers. That could begin with an ontological understanding of software as infrastructure. That would lead to a normative ethos in which this infrastructural layer should be developed from a public values perspective. Which would lead to a particular design framework, prompting questions, such as “how do we do this?”, and answers, such as “through a values-in-design perspective, learning communities and a set of standards.” The outcome could then be an open source-market place for these technologies. Do we want to tell this whole story? Or do we want to focus on particular aspects? Which of these layers is the focus of the ‘public software’ concept? +We may have to better articulate this stack of approaches, or perhaps choose a focus. Or we may have to better articulate the logic between these layers. That could begin with an ontological understanding of software as infrastructure. That would lead to a normative ethos in which this infrastructural layer should be developed from a public values perspective. Which would lead to a particular design framework, prompting questions, such as “how do we do this?”, and answers, such as “through a values-in-design perspective, learning communities and a set of standards.” The outcome could then be an open source-market place for these technologies. Do we want to tell this whole story? Or do we want to focus on particular aspects? Which of these layers is the focus of the ‘public software’ concept? So far our interest have been wavering between these layers. In the workshop we started off with the goal to discuss tech questions such as “what should be the specifications of public code?” But we discussed social issues such as illiteracy in governments, the lack of an 'ecology' model for software development, and the need for a society-centered design perspective. diff --git a/workshops/index.md b/workshops/index.md index c085db0..2d84aef 100644 --- a/workshops/index.md +++ b/workshops/index.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Public Code is an early stage concept for a type of code developed with the publ This series of workshops is organized by a consortium made out of the Foundation for Public Code, the City of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. The aim is to gather information for the benefit of this research and to start a network of collaborators on the topic. -## Workshops +## Workshop dates * October 8: [The Heroes Of Tech (Code4All summit), București](bucharest.md) * November 16: [Smart City Expo World Congress, Barcelona](barcelona.md)