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-DG-ITEC-report.pdf
-------- Original Message --------
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
|