Our Identity, Mission and Vision

[roughani]

Hello Collaborators,

For those who attended this past weekend's OpenDisclosure Summit, you may have left with questions in your head about what this OpenCalifornia thing is and isn't. That's okay and that's what this thread is for. In short, OpenCalifornia is whatever we want it to be (and that thing may not end up being branded as "OpenCalifornia").

The homepage of opencalifornia.github.io currently states:

Help build a better California, together.

OpenCalifornia is a platform for organizing open data and civic technology projects that can be replicated and scaled throughout the state of California. We're a coalition of Code for America brigades, journalists, reform groups, and public officials committed to improving California governance by making civic information more open and accessible.

So, in its simplest form, OpenCalifornia is a platform for collaboration. But then there's a suggestion that we're also a coalition. Are we? Are there reasons why we ought not be a coalition? What do you think?

It's one thing to share information with each other, but there are some folks wanting to advocate for better open data policies or stronger campaign disclosure laws. To that end, it makes sense that we would want to have a unified strategy and consistent voice.

At the summit, Phil presented a slide deck that referred to us as a federated network of Code for America Brigades in California. That makes a lot of sense, too. And I think it help clarifies the need to not have any single person or organization in control.

Anyways, I just wanted to get some initial thoughts out there and see if GitHub issues is going to work for discussions. Please chime in with any thoughts you have. Or create a new issue if you want to discuss another topic.

In the meantime, don't let these existential questions stop you from sharing code, best practices, opinions, etc.

[bayreporta]

Thanks for getting this started Ash.

Whatever this becomes down the line, I think becoming a resource hub for other brigades, groups, whomever to get equipped with the knowledge to dig into campaign finance and technical issues relating to disclosure projects would be a good first step. This could include a portal back to websites/projects of coalition members (I like the idea of a coalition).

I've started documenting how cities and counties present campaign finance documents here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n4z58GA_yTZbqyGrZhmOCGV9BBhX8nD-6NE5Lq5Qi_g/edit#gid=0

Feel free to contribute if interested. I've identified about 25% of jurisdictions to-date.

I know there was also talk about setting up a Discourse site.

Cheers~

[spjika]

I think there is a clearly suggested break point- if the focus is on projects that can be replicated and scaled, then we're a federated group of somewhat random organizations and brigades, and this to me is a reaction to a lack of cross brigade clarity, communication and coordination that was expressed clearly at the CFA summit. And this is a reasonable way to tackle that, as long as it's more coordinated than ad-hoc.
But, while that work matters, I think that is distinct from the huge body of work needed to push for reforms, opendata, transparency and opengov at the state level- something that is not being done broadly and is ripe for action. Groups like 1st Amendment Coalition, CAFWD, EFF, Common Sense Media and CIR are doing stuff in this space but it is not coordinated nor paired with the civic tech model.
If we proceed with a brigade coordination/scaling model I'm for it and Oakland can help and benefit, but to be honest I have more appetite for a state targeting effort and this wouldn't be it- not a negative, just think we need to be clear of the universe we're claiming as our operating theater.