Monthly Archives: May 2007

Don't Ban Facebook – Op-ed in today's G&M

You can download the op-ed here.

The Globe and Mail published an op-ed I wrote today on why the government shouldn’t ban face book, but hire it.

The point is that Web 2.0 technologies, properly used, can improve communication and coordination across large organizations and communities. If the government must ban Facebook then it should also hire it to provide a similar service across its various ministries. If not it risks sending a strong message that it wants its employees to stay in your little box.

One thing I didn’t get into in the op-ed is the message this action sends to prospective (younger) employees. Such a ban is a great example of how the government sees its role as manager. Essential the public service is telling its employees “we don’t trust that you will do your job and will waste your (and our) time doing (what we think are) frivolous things. Who wants to work in an environment where there own boss doesn’t trust them? Does that sound like a learning environment? Does it sound like a fun environment?

Probably not.

—–

Facebook Revisited

DAVID EAVES
SPECIAL TO GLOBE AND MAIL
MAY 17, 2007 AT 12:38 AM EDT

Today’s federal and provincial governments talk a good game about public-service renewal, reducing hierarchy, and improving inter-ministry co-operation. But actions speak louder than words, and our bureaucracies’ instincts for secrecy and control still dominate their culture and frame their understanding of technology.

Last week, these instincts revealed themselves again when several public-service bureaucracies — including Parliament Hill and the Ontario Public Service — banned access to Facebook.

To public-service executives, Facebook may appear to be little more than a silly distraction. But it needn’t be. Indeed, it could be the very opposite. These technology platforms increasingly serve as a common space, even a community, a place where public servants could connect, exchange ideas and update one another on their work. Currently, the public service has a different way of achieving those goals: It’s called meetings, or worse, e-mail. Sadly, as anyone who works in a large organizations knows, those two activities can quickly consume a day, pulling one away from actual work. Facebook may “waste time” but it pales in comparison to the time spent in redundant meetings and answering a never-ending stream of e-mails.

An inspired public service shouldn’t ban Facebook, it should hire it.

A government-run Facebook, one that allowed public servants to list their interests, current area of work, past experiences, contact information and current status, would be indispensable. It would allow public servants across ministries to search out and engage counterparts with specialized knowledge, relevant interests or similar responsibilities. Moreover, it would allow public servants to set up networks, where people from different departments, but working on a similar issue, could keep one another abreast of their work.

In contrast, today’s public servants often find themselves unaware of, and unable to connect with, colleagues in other ministries or other levels of government who work on similar issues. This is not because their masters don’t want them to connect (although this is sometimes the case) but because they lack the technology to identify one another. As a result, public servants drafting policy on interconnected issues — such as the Environment Canada employee working on riverbed erosion and the Fisheries and Oceans employee working on spawning salmon — may not even know the other exists.

One goal of public-sector renewal is to enable better co-operation. Ian Green, the Public Policy Forum chair of Public Service
Governance noted in an on-line Globe and Mail commentary (Ensuring Our Public Service Is A Force For Good In The Lives Of Canadians — May 8) that governments face “increasingly complex and cross-cutting issues … such as environmental and health policy.” If improving co-ordination and the flow of information within and across government ministries is a central challenge, then Facebook isn’t a distraction, it’s an opportunity.

Better still, implementing such a project would be cheap and simple. After all, the computer code that runs Facebook has already been written. More importantly, it works, and, as the government is all too aware, government employees like using it. Why not ask Facebook to create a government version? No expensive scaling or customization would be required. More importantly, by government-IT standards, it would be inexpensive.

It would certainly be an improvement over current government online directories. Anyone familiar with the federal government’s Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) knows it cannot conduct searches based on interests, knowledge or experience. Indeed, searches are only permissible by name, title, telephone and department. Ironically, if you knew any of that information, you probably wouldn’t need the search engine to begin with.

Retired public servants still talk of a time when ministries were smaller, located within walking distance of one another, and where everyone knew everyone else. In their day — 60 years ago — inter-ministerial problems were solved over lunch and coffee in a shared cafeteria or local restaurant. Properly embraced, technologies like Facebook offer an opportunity to recapture the strengths of this era.

By facilitating communication, collaboration and a sense of community, the public services of Canada may discover what their
employees already know: Tools like Facebook are the new cafeterias, where challenges are resolved, colleagues are kept up to date, and inter-ministerial co-operation takes place. Sure, ban Facebook if you must. But also hire it. The job of the public services will be easier and Canadians interests will be more effectively served.

David Eaves is a frequent speaker and consultant on public policy and negotiation. He recently spoke at the Association of Professional Executives conference on Public Service Renewal.

Messina and Firefox

So I know I’m late to the party but wanted to contribute some thoughts to the Messina debate on Mozilla.

What I find most interesting are not the specifics of the discussion, but the principles beings discussed and the manner by which they are being discussed.

Break Messina piece down and he is essentially making two assertions:

1. “I don’t understand Mozilla’s strategy” and (unsurprisingly!) here are my ideas
2. “Let the community rule”

The response, has been fairly quiet. Some were clearly frustrated. Others saw it as an opportunity to raise their own pet issues. What I haven’t seen (on Planet Mozilla) is a post that really engages Chris’ ideas and says “I don’t agree with Chris on ‘a’ or ‘b’, but he’s right about ‘c.’ ” To be fair, it’s hard to react well to criticism – especially from someone you count on as an ally. When you spend your day fighting billion dollar beasts you don’t exactly want to spend time and energy defending your rear.

However, the silence risks increasing the gap between Mozilla and those who agree with Chris (which judging from his blog may or may not be a fair number of people). I was struck that one commentator said: “I didn’t know somebody could talk like this about Firefox until now.” Such a comment should be a red flag. If the community has some sacred cows or self-censors itself, that’s a bad sign. For this, and other reasons, the thrust of Messina-like rant’s may have significant implications for the future of Mozilla.

The problem is that as the Mozilla community grows and the choices for where to concentrate resources become less and less ‘obvious,’ the community members will increasingly want be part of the strategic decision-making process. When the objective is clear – build a better open browser – its easy to allocate my scarce economic resources towards the project because the aim is obvious (so I either buy-in or I don’t). But as success takes on more nebulous meaning, I need to understand why I should allocate my time and energy. Indeed, I’m more likely to do so if a) I understand the goal and b) I know I can help contribute to deciding what the goal should be.

In this regard Mozilla need to constantly re-examine how it manages strategy and engages with its community (which I know it does!). Personally, I agree with Messina that Mozilla is not a browser company. Indeed, in a previous (not entirely well formed) post, I argue that Mozilla’s isn’t even a software company. Mozilla’s is a community management organization. Consequently its core competency is not coding, but community management. The concern (I think) I share with Messina (if I read between the lines of his rant) is that as Mozilla grows and becomes more successful the decisions it must make also become increasingly complex and involve higher stakes. The fear is that Mozilla will react by adopting more corporate decision-making processes because a) its familiar – everybody knows how this process works and b) its easy – one can consult, but ultimately decisions reside with a few people who trust (or at least employ) one another.

However, if Mozilla is a community management organization then the opposite is true. Mozilla needs a way to treat its strategy like its code, open to editing and contribution. I know it already strives to do this. But what does open-strategy vs. 2.0 look like? What does community management 2.0 look like? Can Mozilla make its community integral to its strategy development? I believe that at its core, Mozilla’s success will depend on its capacity to facilitate these discussions (I may even use the dreaded term… dialogues). This may feel time consuming and onerous, but it pales in comparison to the cost of losing community members (or not attracting them in the first place).

If Mozilla can crack this problem then rants like Messina’s won’t be a threat, they’ll be an opportunity. Or at least he’ll a place where he can channel them.

The Day in Print

Two interesting pieces out today:

Veronica Kitchen and Karthika Sasikumar published an op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. Entitled Air India’s Lesson for Promoting Security at Home it discusses how human security needs not only to be championed abroad, but is a basic principle that should be used when designing security policy at home.

Also, Peter MacLeod sent me this interesting piece in the Hill Times about the (failed) Liberal Renewal Commission. As many of you know most of the Liberal Renewal Commission reports were never formally published or translated. Several of those on the commission released their reports independently after the fact. I’ve posted links to three of them here.

Citizens' Assemblies – In opposition to responsible government

Some of you may recall this great debate we had on the site over the merits of Citizens’ Assemblies. My friend, David Brock has gone and added fuel to the fire with an op-ed entitled “Ontario abdicates its duty on electoral reformin Thursday’s Toronto Star.

David punches a number of holes into the Citizens’ Assembly process, but I think his ultimate critique drives to the heart of the matter – that even citizens’ assemblies cannot escape the problem of representation. Someone, somewhere, made choices about which groups should and shouldn’t be represented within the assembly. This, naturally, has an impact the outcome. Choices will be made that favour some over others.

Representative democracy is far from perfect, but it at least allows those choices to be debated openly. Citizens’ Assemblies, in contrast, are top-down, opaque processes with little oversight or self-correcting mechanisms. I’m still searching for the evidence to see how they produce better, more equitable or more ‘representative’ outcomes.

Government Sponsoring Anti-Abortion March?

So much going on right now – tons to share on the Mozilla debate, the APEX conference, and the government bans on Facebook – will be getting to it all next week. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this:

I was in Ottawa yesterday (May 10th) and ran headlong into the annual March for Life.

Politics around the issue aside (I’m pro-marching for what you believe in – whatever you believe) I was surprised to see that the big 30 foot long “March for Life” banners at the front of the march had the Government of Canada logo on them.

You, know, this logo:

Gov of Can logo

Is the government of Canada sponsoring anti-abortion groups? Normally you use this logo if you receive government funding. Not sure what the rules are around government funding political advocacy groups? Anybody know?

Alternatively, maybe the march’s organizing body just grabbed the logo and slapped it on its banners? Is this logo trademarked? Is this a trademark violation? Although I somehow suspect that no one at Justice is getting all that excited about it.

Either way, it is interesting…

Canadian Foreign Policy oriented Job Posting

I’ve recently been asked to sit on the advisory committee for Canada’s World. An emerging project that seeks to facilitate a national dialogue on Canadian Foreign Policy.

Shauna Sylvester, the founder and director has started the process of staffing up the project. Attached below is the notice. Interested parties should contact Shauna.

Job Posting – Online Community Facilitator and Editor

Term: 18 months
Rate: $55,000 to $60,000 based on experience
Location: Vancouver
Ideal Start date: June 11, 2007
Application deadline: May 23, 2007

Canada’s World, a project of the SFU Centre for Dialogue seeks a full-time On-Line Community Facilitator and Editor to join our national team. Canada’s World is a national citizens’ dialogue aimed at creating a new vision for Canadian international policy. Our secretariat offices are based in Vancouver and we work in collaboration with a series of academic and non-profit organizations across the country.

The On-line Community Facilitator and Editor plays a pivotal role in this collaborative initiative. S/he will report to the Director of Canada’s World and work closely with staff, interns, volunteers and advisory committee members in creating a virtual community where citizens can exchange ideas and learn about Canada’s place in the world.

The idea candidate will be an excellent writer, well-organized, and detail-oriented with a passion for and knowledge of international policy issues. S/he will be bilingual (French and English), enjoy working within a dynamic work environment and capable of analyzing complex discussions and distilling them in plain language communications. S/he will be experienced at facilitating on-line forums and blogs, enjoy editing and working with computers and social networking tools. S/he will possess a post-secondary degree in Arts, Social Sciences, Information Management or a related field, enjoy working in a face-paced dynamic environment and have the ability to think creatively.

Canada’s World is an equal opportunity employer. All interested applicants should submit their cover letter, resume and a 200 word response to the following question: What are some of the greatest challenges and opportunities facing Canada internationally in the next twenty years?

to: Shauna Sylvester shaunas@canadasworld.ca, Canada’s World Fellow, SFU Centre for Dialogue, 3303 – 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5K3

Job Description

The Online Community Facilitator/Editor is responsible for facilitating the virtual presence of Canada’s World. S/he reports to the Project Director and works with web design staff in ensuring that the on-line components of the initiative are developed and delivered to maximize citizen engagement. Specific duties include:

Communications and Marketing

  • Assisting staff in identifying appropriate modes of marketing the website
  • Inviting community members to use the site, assisting them with access and logistical issues
  • Responding to information requests from community members in a timely manner
  • Developing on-line tools to maximize social networking and outreach to existing and potential community members

Editing and Regulation

  • Overseeing the approval of content across the site and ensuring that quality content is approved and inappropriate content is declined
  • Consulting with appropriate stakeholders when editorial issues arise and addressing them in a sensitive manner
  • Bringing attention to and/or enforcing community norms, rules and procedures
  • Acting as the primary liaison with the web hosting organization, suppliers and licensing bodies

On-line Programming

  • Uploading content onto the site, creating groups and folders and updating web pages
  • Maintaining a daily blog which summarizes the key ideas from the days’ online deliberations
  • Facilitating a daily on-line forum based on the key themes from the citizens’ dialogues
  • Designing and monitoring on-line surveys and developing summary reports of their findings
  • Tracking and monitoring web usage to identify areas for strength and improvement

Planning, Administration, Reporting

  • Providing advice to the Director and web design team on strengthening the on-line dimensions of the initiative
  • Working and supporting interns and volunteers in web-related activities
  • Providing written reports for presentation to funders as necessary
  • Participating in evaluations of the on-line program
  • Participating and representing Canada’s World at external meetings as requested
  • Participate actively on the Canada’s World staff team and share in the administrative duties

1946: The year the justice system failed

In this previous post on my grandfather, Israel Halperin, I (briefly) talked about how he was arrested, charged and unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Canadian government for violating the Secrecies Act during the Gouzenko Affair.

What I didn’t share (because it was discussed in the obituary) was how he was held without charge for weeks by the RCMP and interrogated by judges who wanted to use these interviews to build a case against him. This clear violation of Habeas Corpus – in addition to the above he was also held without charge and was denied access to a lawyer – is another cautionary about how the Canadian government has a history of placing its citizens in legal limbo.

Although the trial against him collapsed it was almost certainly a defining moment in his life, sparking his work as a human rights activist. Interestingly, thanks to my uncle and the research of Sandra Martin, I have the text of the letter my grandfather wrote (via his wife) to John Bracken, the Progressive Conservative Party leader of the time. The letter, which was read in the House of Commons in 1946, describes his illegal incarceration and pleads the opposition leader to help secure his release, or give him an opportunity to face his accusers.

For those who believe that Arar was an unfortunate blip in Canada’s history, Israel Halperin’s letter offers a powerful counterpoint.

For those uninterested in PDF’s here is the letter’s text:

Dear Mr. Bracken,

Although I am not a member of your political party, I feel sure that the matter about which I am writing to you will have your most serious consideration.

Since the 15th day of February 1946, I have been held prisoner by the RCMP at their barracks in Rockcliff, Ontario by an order signed by the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Louis St. Laurent.

It may sound fantastic but I have to tell you that no charges have been laid against me and I was given to understand that my status was simply that of ‘prisoner,’ held at the pleasure of the Minister of Justice, for an indefinite period of time and with absolutely no civil or legal rights other than those specifically granted by the Minister of Justice. I still do not know which rights, if any, the Minister of Justice is granted to me.

For the past five weeks I have been held in solitary imprisonment; denied access to legal counsel and newspapers: in short, cut off from the outside world.

I have written twice to the Minister of Justice in protest against this Bastille-like imprisonment. His replies referred to some Royal commission, but made no change in the incredible situation which I find myself. They have, in effect, merely confirm that the Minister of Justice is fully aware of the conditions of my imprisonment.

If I am accused of crime or misconduct, I deny the charge. I cannot know what accusation or slander have been presented to the public by the Department of Justice, either directly or through the mouths of others. But I have the certain knowledge that there cannot be a shred of true evidence for what is completely false.

This imprisonment is a terrible injustice to me and I charge the Minister of Justice with using his authority in a way which sets a dangerous precedent, one which should alarm every Canadian citizen.

I appeal to you to raise your voice on this matter and I beg you to read this letter in the House.

If you are interested in who I am, I will tell you that I am a native-born Canadian whose occupation is that a professor of mathematics in Queens University, Kingston, Ont. I come from a family whose concern for our country was sufficient to put two sons in uniform. One of them is writing this letter; the other is at the bottom of the ocean.

Since my letters are intercepted and I am never told whether they are sent on, I would be grateful if you would trouble to acknowledge this letter, if you receive it.

Yours very sincerely,

(sgd) Israel Halperin

Negotiating with the Enemy: the case of Iran, Syria and the United States

After my friend Taylor published this post about the US-Syrian-Iranian negotiation he asked me how would I structure the talks and what would be the most significant obstacle.

Back in the 1970’s Roger Fisher used a method called the one-text that helped create the document that became the basis for the 1978 Sinai Agreement between Israel and Egypt. The one-text process is a variation of mediation that is simple, but powerful. Clinton also proposed using the process in 2000 with the Israeli’s and Palestinians.

The one-text process feels appropriate because it works best in multi-party negotiations where trust is low. Iranian-Syrian-American relations have deteriorated to such an extent that any conversation is unlikely to be open, honest, or even civil. In short, they are unlikely to be productive. The basis for an agreement, and even just communicating, will be hard to establish. Think that diplomacy is above that? Then why did Bush feel the need to confirm that if Condi ran into her Iranian counterpart, she would be civil?

Indeed, this is the main issue: can the parties trust each other? There are enormous opportunities for joint gain… but the domestic risks for each of the actors are also enormous. This is the tragedy of the situation. Each actor (Syria, Iran and the US) is now hostage to the negative perceptions their domestic populations have of one another, negative perceptions their respective elites helped create, foster and nurture. How can Iran, America or Syria cut a deal with a country that have for 20 years been labeled as a mortal enemy? This would be, at best, politically problematic in the US and potentially destabilizing for the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Consequently any functional solution cannot threaten (in the short and medium term) the legitimacy of any of the actors domestic standing. This probably means that any negotiated solution will have to be discrete. The parties may come to agreement, but they cannot be seen coming to an agreement.

A back channel one-text thus becomes the obvious choice. The starting point being that all the parties recognize the opportunity cooperating presents, but also recognizing they can’t be seen working together. Of course, the other challenge is that this means there are huge risks for cooperating, but the costs of defection (particularly if the interest calculus shifts) are low. The negotiators would have to find a way to make the costs of defection feel relatively high versus the costs of cooperation. A one-text process that explores their interests may reveal such an outcome, but if I had an answer to that quandary offhand I’d probably be in an air conditioned room in Turkey right now, working with State Department officials.

Ironically, the main obstacle to using the one-text process would likely be a reluctance on the part of the United States to submit itself to a mediated process.  I suspect that although the Americans feel it is a good enough process for everybody else, the world’s only superpower will never enter into mediation.

Research on the 1960 Kingston Conference… any leads?

I recently read John Beal’s 1964 book “The Pearson Phenomenon” I found this little gem in the library while looking for books that would have something to say about to Kingston conference that the liberal party held the week of September 6, 1960.

The book is interesting for two reasons. The first is that it is written by an American. (and I thought Americans didn’t care about Canadian politics, especially in 1960?) The second is that it was written in 1964, while Pearson was in office and so reflects the optimism and challenges of that time.

What drew me to the book was what it had to say about the Kingston conference – for which it had a reasonable blow-by-blow account, some transcripts and interviews with key player. Not a ton of material, but at least 15-20 pages worth.

I’ve been struck by how little has been written about the Kingston conference. For those who are also looking for accounts of the event, this book has some of the play-by-play but will almost certainly leave you wanting. If you found a good account of the conference, both of its organization and/or a description of the events, please let me know by e-mailing me or posting a comment. Would appreciate any thoughts ot help…