Quote:
Originally Posted by Streck-Fu
What would be outcome of that discussion?
|
Historians have long been concerned with the way .GOV handles documents that may be of interest for future research. For example, members of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations have been concerned over some of the DoS's editorial decisions with recent volumes of
Foreign Relations of the United States.
Historians and others are concerned about the best way to archive digital materials given the rapid turn over of technology.
Moreover, not all corporations that use IT have mature policies or "best practices" when it comes to using personal devices for doing work.
My thought is that broadening the conversation in a non partisan environment will encourage more Americans to think about issues beyond the latest scrum in the Beltway. Is GOV the best guardian of America's increasingly digital past or should it be outsources (in part or completely) to private firms such as Google? What are the implications for America's institutional memory if there are multiple sensibilities and standards informing its preservation?
My opinion is that the political party that presents better policies in response to today's issues is going to set the agenda for the half century while the political party that spends the most time pointing fingers is going to find itself irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hand
Do you think any progress will be made?
|
Yes, provided the discussion is not encouraged to become another example of two echo chambers competing to see which one can be the loudest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hand
It's a dark day when the only power the people have left is banding together and marching on Washington.
|
I do not share your sense of disillusionment nor do I believe that mass protests in the nation's capitol is the only remaining option.
My $0.02.