Aspects of NZDIMP not found in ODC

Thanks @weijileong looks like you can't change the proposal once people start voting (I can understand why too ;) ) - other than the typo feel free to lend your vote on this.

At the end of the day too, I think all these policy details should strive to be invisible, Just like tap water infrastructure, you don't want to know how the plumbing and all that works, you just want the water to be clean. Having that accessible information (water) is crucial, but sometimes people don't have to get into the details about the data (pipe infrastructure). Of course though, if something goes wrong (water leak), it's always good to have access to the plumbing :smiley:

We've started a new thread to discuss the impacts specifically drawing from the discussions over the last few weeks - please continue the discussions over at https://www.loomio.org/d/nRvY9XrW

Cam - From this page: https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/open-government/new-zealand-data-and-information-management-principles/ I see no mention in the NZDIMP of specific NZ laws such as the Privacy Act. Am I looking at the right thing?

Well thought out response @aaronmcglinchy - exactly the kind of insight we are looking to draw out in this consultation :thumbsup:

@jaydaley I understand your perspective too, but to get to where you are talking about would take a shift at the Government level, not just organisational.

Taking the usefulness to us of registration, part of the reason for us is justifiying investment in the data and data delivery platforms. As a CRI our situation is different from say a Govt department, but in some respects I expect they'd have the same issue as I outline below.

We have a range of data that we manage, and limited resources with which to do so. Some data gets direct investment from govt, other data (or services or enhancements to the directly govt funded data) gets indirect/discretionary/and perhaps some commercial investment. Our management are challenged with making decisions about what areas to grow/support/invest in, and the curators of the data can help make the case for continued investment in particular data or delivery mechanisms... that benefits data users, but they need evidence to make that case, and basic information about registered users may help that case. So its a bit chicken and egg... and perhaps case specific, some data just inherently has recognised value and must be collected e.g. the Census data - if there is not a need to continually justify continued investment, then for such data perhaps registration is not necessary (from that perspective).

Also, ODC says things like users will know the limitations on the use of data... some data that we make available could be wrongly used and potentially have significant consequences. So there is some level of risk in us making data available (to both the user, and to us). Having some clear statements around the need to be aware of the appropriate use of data (e.g. understanding its degree of accuracy...) which are pointed out users when they first register helps us manage our risk, and is part of making users aware of limitations and ensuring they ask for advice if they may be using data for a purpose beyond its original applications/fitness for purpose... The alternative may be for data providers to be more risk averse and not provide data in as detailed a level or at all, which doesn't benefit users. Also, how do providers engage with users if they remain anonymous e.g. if errors were found in data how could we specifically advise people who have used the data?

I can't argue against the principle that people shouldn't have to identify themselves to use data, but there are practical reasons why it might benefit both parties. Basically I think that for both data users and data providers, it's a case of you can't (always) have your cake and eat it.

Thanks @aaronmcglinchy . I agree that this requires a shift but I'm not sure it's at the governmental level and not agency level. Only the other I was at a conference where Bill English said all the right things, such as "Anyone can know anything, now, for nothing" so it doesn't sound to me like a change is needed there.

At the agency level though it concerns me when you talk about management using evidence of use as part of the investment decisions regarding data. Open data is an obligation not a choice and evidence of use should not form any part of that.

Yes I agree that without registration agencies make take a more cautious approach to what detail is provided. Releasing data safely is not simple and a bit of caution at first is just an ordinary part of the learning cycle.

Some of the benefits that you see coming from the publication of data such as explaining issues with the data, are indeed important features in the way the data is released but they can achieved without registration. Data portals put a lot of effort into that problem.

Finally, just to note that i my experience the users of my published data come to me muc more frequently than I go to them

I was just re-reading some of this material and noticed your comment "At the agency level though it concerns me when you talk about management using evidence of use as part of the investment decisions regarding data. Open data is an obligation not a choice and evidence of use should not form any part of that."

Being obliged to do something, no mater how much you might agree with it, doesn't ensure that it happens (or even can happen). There are costs to collecting, maintaining, and sharing data. If management cannot see a demand or business case for particular data, then that data has got to be in the firing line whenever cost cutting measures are required.

There are differences between the likes of Departments/Ministries... and my experience in a CRI. The former may indeed be obligated to collect data on X and to share that data - they will also be funded to do that. For some data CRIs are specifically funded to collect and maintain data collections (though often funding is at a baseline level). Other data (or bells and whistles to existing data) is more discretionary, and unless there is an ongoing demand/funding source, the ongoing collection and/or availability of such data will always be subject to review. E.g. we recently reviewed the large number of websites we host that had arisen over the years, and some may now be retired. Repositories that maintain value by holding valued datasets can mean that less valued data housed within is also (still) available, but it will be the less well used data that is first to have further collection stopped...

Even for Depts/Ministries, if they are facing budget constraints, then I am sure that whilst they will strive to do what they are obliged to do, if funding is short, and some data is deemed to be less useful/less in demand, it would logically be that data which receives minimal resourcing to keep up to date/being collected and made available.

Basically I guess I am trying to say that the noble ideal of open data is well and good, but it is tempered against real world practicalities and resource constraints.