Comments on: Stop Spinning Business and Government

By: jana gallatin

jana gallatin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:59:53 +0000

Is it the same transaction? Do I get a discount when I’m buying in bulk? What if my intention is to resell the toilet paper and I have a tax exemption?

By: Joel McLaughlin

Joel McLaughlin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:09:55 +0000

I agree with the keeping it simple as well. I hate the word Web 2.0 – it should be called “Web Dynamic 2.0″ or something like that, because that is the root of web 2.0 (in my opinion of course). aren’t we to web 2.1 yet?

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:44:55 +0000

You nailed it with keeping things simple, a concept few business operations comprehend. If the goal is to keep things simple, there wouldn’t be ordinances and bylaws to amend original statutes but a hard look at the original statute and a determination if it can be struck or replaced.

People try to slap a 2.0 on themselves too, Wayne; but it’s called parenthood.

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:42:17 +0000

Ultimately, whether you buy a roll of toilet paper as an individual or a carton of toilet paper as an institution, you are conducting the same transaction with the same seller; the difference is the amount of money given for toilet paper received. Why should it matter if the transaction is G2C or G2G?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:11:49 +0000

Personally, I think it’s all hype. Slap some new moniker on it and spin it out there for the bit heads and social whores to say “What? Am I missing out on some new slang?” and begin using it themselves.

I’m all for keeping things simple, and honestly, versioning is great for software and web sites that are expected to grow and change over time, but it isn’t necessary for things like Government or “the web”, in fact it only serves to increase the confusion, like you said.

It’s catchy and hip these days to slap a 2.0 on the end of anything, and that’s the problem. Companies, governments and news organizations are trying to be hip and cool, when there is no chance of them ever being hip or cool.
New from Wayne: Learning Web Development Through Blogging

By: jana gallatin

jana gallatin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:18:30 +0000

Ari,
You make some good points. I was drawn to O’Reilly Radar’s suggestion not because it made the conversation more complex, but because it seemed to be trying to not leave anyone out. That said, if we do go down that path, likely we’ll be trying to define the relationship of all kinds of entities to other entities. NGO – Gov, Church – Gov, Gov – Foreign Gov, Union – Gov…It could get messy.

On the other hand, relationships are messy. We have to try to navigate through life by deciding what role we are playing as we interact with other people and entities. We don’t do it consciously, we just do it.

Perhaps the difficult part is winnowing out what information about the interactions must be captured for posterity’s sake or for legal reasons. Civil society doesn’t flourish without some basis of common understanding. So, we have to categorize things in order to be able to store, find and reuse them. But, then I have that records/historical focus, so naturally, I’m going to make that kind of connection.