Fwd: [EPFSUG] Free Software and Open Standards in the EP - a 2nd Opinion by Mitopics on DG-ITEC Discharge Report
Medveten om risken för att det utbryter ett epidemiskt politikerexem i DFRI vill jag ändå höja exponeringen genom att visa på möjliga (politiska) lösningar som själva grundfrågan "hur sköter man en demokrati?" ställer. //Erik Link to study: http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2013-11/msg00034/20131031ME-2nd-Opinion-on-D... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [EPFSUG] Free Software and Open Standards in the EP - a 2nd Opinion by Mitopics on DG-ITEC Discharge Report Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:21:41 +0000 From: JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson%europarl.europa.eu@epfsug.eu> Reply-To: epfsug@epfsug.eu To: Epfsug@Epfsug.Eu (epfsug@epfsug.eu) <epfsug@epfsug.eu> Dear all, Please find attached a "2nd Opinion" by Mitopics on the DG-ITEC Discharge Report commissioned by MEPs Bart Staes and Amelia Andersdotter on behalf of the Greens/EFA. It walks through what has been answered and not answered in response to the 2010 and 2011 Discharge resolutions: /“Requests for the second time, after the first request relating to the discharge procedure was made in 2010, a full report on how Parliament's Free Software projects have developed with regard to use and users in Parliament, citizen interaction and procurement activities; invites for the second time to investigate, in a full study, Parliament's obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure with regard to Free Software and Open Standards; regrets that Free Software and Open Source solutions are not more widely used in the Parliament's IT infrastructure;”/ The Opinion says: This resolution contains several questions in two separate categories: * The extent of the development, use, users and procurement of free software; and * how Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure translate into obligations to use free software and open standards. Wrt Rule 103 the Opinion states: *Further recommendations * Since the letter by Mr. Schultz indicates that no analysis of the Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure vis-à-vis its ICT-policies have taken place, it is recommended that such a study be completed and should at least answer following questions: Given that Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure touch upon the vital role of the Parliament’s records and proceedings in both democratic participation in its legislative process as well as its legitimacy, the logical conclusion is that the following principles of good electronic government and governance[1] apply to the Parliament’s citizen interactions, records keeping of its proceedings and legislative history: 1. Authenticity: the ability to prove the provenance of Parliamentary information; 2. Integrity: the ability to ascertain that Parliamentary information has not been changed in the meantime; 3. Irrefutability: the ability to use a Parliamentary record as irrefutable proof; 4. Transparency: the ability to detect and analyses changes in the Parliamentary record’s contents; 5. Availability: the availability and accessibility of a document; 6. Flexibility: the extent to which technology can be adapted to future requirements and can avoid obsolescence; 7. Confidentiality: the extent to which Parliamentary records can be kept confidential if warranted. In light of this, any study to the application of Rule 103 to the Parliament’s ICT-infrastructure would require a mapping of all processes that touch upon citizen interactions and the Parliament’s proceedings and legislative process and would analyse the current information flows, the means and software used for them and the digital formats used to process, store and share them. Furthermore, such a study would apply the above principles to these information flows, the software and formats used for them and result in recommendations to what extent the use of FOSS and open standards is critical to adhere to these principles as a whole. [1] H. Franken, Kanttekeningen bij het automatiseren van beschikkingen, in: Beschikken en automatiseren, VAR-reeks 110, Alphen aan den Rijn 1993. I find these points compelling. I think a study on Rule 103 would be very useful. //Erik
"De" tycker att den är lustig, vår förening. Vår förening är inte en riktigt politiskt partisamling som man kan engagera sig . //19x20 On 2013-11-23 12:49, Erik Josefsson wrote:
Medveten om risken för att det utbryter ett epidemiskt politikerexem i DFRI vill jag ändå höja exponeringen genom att visa på möjliga (politiska) lösningar som själva grundfrågan "hur sköter man en demokrati?" ställer.
//Erik
Link to study: http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2013-11/msg00034/20131031ME-2nd-Opinion-on-D...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [EPFSUG] Free Software and Open Standards in the EP - a 2nd Opinion by Mitopics on DG-ITEC Discharge Report Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:21:41 +0000 From: JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson%europarl.europa.eu@epfsug.eu> Reply-To: epfsug@epfsug.eu To: Epfsug@Epfsug.Eu (epfsug@epfsug.eu) <epfsug@epfsug.eu>
Dear all,
Please find attached a "2nd Opinion" by Mitopics on the DG-ITEC Discharge Report commissioned by MEPs Bart Staes and Amelia Andersdotter on behalf of the Greens/EFA.
It walks through what has been answered and not answered in response to the 2010 and 2011 Discharge resolutions:
/“Requests for the second time, after the first request relating to the discharge procedure was made in 2010, a full report on how Parliament's Free Software projects have developed with regard to use and users in Parliament, citizen interaction and procurement activities; invites for the second time to investigate, in a full study, Parliament's obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure with regard to Free Software and Open Standards; regrets that Free Software and Open Source solutions are not more widely used in the Parliament's IT infrastructure;”/
The Opinion says:
This resolution contains several questions in two separate categories: * The extent of the development, use, users and procurement of free software; and * how Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure translate into obligations to use free software and open standards.
Wrt Rule 103 the Opinion states:
*Further recommendations * Since the letter by Mr. Schultz indicates that no analysis of the Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure vis-à-vis its ICT-policies have taken place, it is recommended that such a study be completed and should at least answer following questions:
Given that Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure touch upon the vital role of the Parliament’s records and proceedings in both democratic participation in its legislative process as well as its legitimacy, the logical conclusion is that the following principles of good electronic government and governance[1] apply to the Parliament’s citizen interactions, records keeping of its proceedings and legislative history:
1. Authenticity: the ability to prove the provenance of Parliamentary information; 2. Integrity: the ability to ascertain that Parliamentary information has not been changed in the meantime; 3. Irrefutability: the ability to use a Parliamentary record as irrefutable proof; 4. Transparency: the ability to detect and analyses changes in the Parliamentary record’s contents; 5. Availability: the availability and accessibility of a document; 6. Flexibility: the extent to which technology can be adapted to future requirements and can avoid obsolescence; 7. Confidentiality: the extent to which Parliamentary records can be kept confidential if warranted.
In light of this, any study to the application of Rule 103 to the Parliament’s ICT-infrastructure would require a mapping of all processes that touch upon citizen interactions and the Parliament’s proceedings and legislative process and would analyse the current information flows, the means and software used for them and the digital formats used to process, store and share them. Furthermore, such a study would apply the above principles to these information flows, the software and formats used for them and result in recommendations to what extent the use of FOSS and open standards is critical to adhere to these principles as a whole.
[1] H. Franken, Kanttekeningen bij het automatiseren van beschikkingen, in: Beschikken en automatiseren, VAR-reeks 110, Alphen aan den Rijn 1993.
I find these points compelling.
I think a study on Rule 103 would be very useful.
//Erik
-- DFRI-listan är öppen för alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
i On 2013-11-24 03:19, 19x20 wrote:
"De" tycker att den är lustig, vår förening. Vår förening är inte en riktigt politiskt partisamling som man kan engagera sig . //19x20
On 2013-11-23 12:49, Erik Josefsson wrote:
Medveten om risken för att det utbryter ett epidemiskt politikerexem i DFRI vill jag ändå höja exponeringen genom att visa på möjliga (politiska) lösningar som själva grundfrågan "hur sköter man en demokrati?" ställer.
//Erik
Link to study: http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2013-11/msg00034/20131031ME-2nd-Opinion-on-D...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [EPFSUG] Free Software and Open Standards in the EP - a 2nd Opinion by Mitopics on DG-ITEC Discharge Report Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:21:41 +0000 From: JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson%europarl.europa.eu@epfsug.eu> Reply-To: epfsug@epfsug.eu To: Epfsug@Epfsug.Eu (epfsug@epfsug.eu) <epfsug@epfsug.eu>
Dear all,
Please find attached a "2nd Opinion" by Mitopics on the DG-ITEC Discharge Report commissioned by MEPs Bart Staes and Amelia Andersdotter on behalf of the Greens/EFA.
It walks through what has been answered and not answered in response to the 2010 and 2011 Discharge resolutions:
/“Requests for the second time, after the first request relating to the discharge procedure was made in 2010, a full report on how Parliament's Free Software projects have developed with regard to use and users in Parliament, citizen interaction and procurement activities; invites for the second time to investigate, in a full study, Parliament's obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure with regard to Free Software and Open Standards; regrets that Free Software and Open Source solutions are not more widely used in the Parliament's IT infrastructure;”/
The Opinion says:
This resolution contains several questions in two separate categories: * The extent of the development, use, users and procurement of free software; and * how Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure translate into obligations to use free software and open standards.
Wrt Rule 103 the Opinion states:
*Further recommendations * Since the letter by Mr. Schultz indicates that no analysis of the Parliament’s transparency obligations under Rule 103 of its Rules of Procedure vis-à-vis its ICT-policies have taken place, it is recommended that such a study be completed and should at least answer following questions:
Given that Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure touch upon the vital role of the Parliament’s records and proceedings in both democratic participation in its legislative process as well as its legitimacy, the logical conclusion is that the following principles of good electronic government and governance[1] apply to the Parliament’s citizen interactions, records keeping of its proceedings and legislative history:
1. Authenticity: the ability to prove the provenance of Parliamentary information; 2. Integrity: the ability to ascertain that Parliamentary information has not been changed in the meantime; 3. Irrefutability: the ability to use a Parliamentary record as irrefutable proof; 4. Transparency: the ability to detect and analyses changes in the Parliamentary record’s contents; 5. Availability: the availability and accessibility of a document; 6. Flexibility: the extent to which technology can be adapted to future requirements and can avoid obsolescence; 7. Confidentiality: the extent to which Parliamentary records can be kept confidential if warranted.
In light of this, any study to the application of Rule 103 to the Parliament’s ICT-infrastructure would require a mapping of all processes that touch upon citizen interactions and the Parliament’s proceedings and legislative process and would analyse the current information flows, the means and software used for them and the digital formats used to process, store and share them. Furthermore, such a study would apply the above principles to these information flows, the software and formats used for them and result in recommendations to what extent the use of FOSS and open standards is critical to adhere to these principles as a whole.
[1] H. Franken, Kanttekeningen bij het automatiseren van beschikkingen, in: Beschikken en automatiseren, VAR-reeks 110, Alphen aan den Rijn 1993.
I find these points compelling.
I think a study on Rule 103 would be very useful.
//Erik
-- DFRI-listan är öppen för alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
participants (2)
-
19x20 -
Erik Josefsson