[talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback
jono at jonorossi.com
Tue Mar 13 05:06:53 UTC 2018
> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> > you are assuming that
> > data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> > everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> data.gov.au an organization has to register
> and provide the following waiver:
> "On behalf of the <entity name>, I request a data publishing account on
> data.gov.au. <entity name> will be responsible for the management of
> this account and the data that is published using it. <entity name> will
> notify the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to any
> changes in ownership of the account and of any issues if they arise. The
> responsibility of publishing data appropriately, in accordance with
> privacy, security and other relevant considerations rests entirely with
> the data publisher and DPMC take no responsibility."
> Not sure what part of that you think transfers any rights from the
> holder to DPMC.
However, isn't that assuming that the process of getting data on the web
site prior to 2011 is the same as it is today.
It appears data.gov.au was started under the Australian Government
Information Management Office (AGIMO) which is still part of the Department
of Finance (known back then as the Department of Finance and Deregulation),
but is now run by the Digital Transformation Agency (under the Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), so that document has at least been
changed since 2011 if not didn't exist back then.
If it did exist and all data came through that waiver I would have expected
the then "Assistant Director, Gov 2.0 Strategy and Services (Manager
data.gov.au), Department of Finance and Deregulation" (source: LinkedIn,
not linking their profile) would have just responded that they don't own or
control the data and to go see the owner.
Yes, it is possible that they didn't know what they were agreeing to or
they didn't actually have permission under whatever arrangement was agreed
to with each stakeholder. However, if we dispute this person's agreement,
then how do we trust each other permission/waiver we've got signed, how do
we know if the person is permitted to represent the government or
organisation on this matter?
After all this data is published under CC BY 2.5/3.0.
That's putting it politely. There is a rather toxic stratum of
> correspondence on talk-au around the period of the license change.
> As I said earlier this is a can of worm and I have been deliberately
> leaving the Contributors page alone and just keeping an eye on what
> people are importing into OSM.
I obviously don't want this to become a toxic discussion again and
understand there are differing opinions, but I don't think ignoring the
problem is a good solution for OSM. Manually looking at every changeset for
data.gov.au sounds like a burden you shouldn't have to perform.
Do you know of a way we could verify this permission without data.gov.au
(DNRM or another on the list) just responding they know nothing about it
and don't think it is valid because the source arrangement details are a
decade old and people have moved on or forgotten?
Many thanks everyone for the discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au