Did we do this already? Most of it was a bit whatevs, but the idea to make all publicly paid-for code open source is a bit of a bombshell, isn’t it?

Link? the only thing I read was a commitment to ‘fibre for all!’ which is an old policy, and supposedly completed by April 2016, which obviously it hasn’t been.

(not my twitter btw, even though initials are the same 🙂 )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219140

Found the actual document.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/corbynstays/pages/329/attachments/original/1472552058/Digital_Democracy.pdf?1472552058

Can’t be bothered to read it until it’s actual policy for an actual party.

That open source thing was interesting as it’s one of the few proposed policies (see his 10 pledges) which feels actually socialist.

Most of the other stuff is just rewinding a few years.

He could promise anything couldn’t he? As Nigel Farage has more chance of being PM.

What do you mean publicly paid for code?

The Government Digital Service publishes it code on github already.

https://github.com/alphagov/

From here https://gdstechnology.blog.gov.uk/2016/05/31/how-we-use-git-at-the-government-digital-service/

It’ll save the Chinese having to hack us to get our military control and command software.

Of course, it’ll be difficult to enforce.
Look at how many Linux-based set-top-boxes and other devices don’t have publicly available code.

I mean, as far as i’m aware most gov. coding bodies try to use as much open source software as possible, and most developers have public github accounts that you can pull from anyway.

it’s not like they have access to the codes for the nukes

Thanks for the link, as per my first post the policy of decent connectivity for all has been a policy of government for years, the first version called for ‘Broadband’ for all, which I believe everyone gets now, they don’t specifically call for fibre now, but I think the wording is “superfast” which to most means fibre, but you wouldn’t get it past a judge. Where JC differs is that he has a different way to push it out over and above making a ‘promise’ to deliver it a requirement of having a monopoly on providing the various networks with little or no penalty for missing it.

Some of rest is very old-school socialism (hardly a surprise) which can be a good and a bad thing – the media in the UK is frankly horribly biased – a few fat old men control far too much of it, Open Knowledge Library, Community Media Freedom all sounds great on paper, but can we trust them to remain unbiased, or will it just churn out party propaganda, moreover, even if it does – will ‘the people’ brought up on a diet of Dacre and Murdoch opinion believe it?

Ultimately though, it’s an empty set of promises from a Man who is on the ropes, I had high hopes for him and unopposed he seemed pretty decent, but at the first sign of rebellion he became like every hard-left politician before him, “if you’re not with me, you’re against me and must be destroyed” he purged his cabinet, or at least the one who couldn’t bang out their resignations quick enough and his followers denounce anyone centre-left as a Blairite – they’re not better than those American idiots who throw around ‘liberal’ as an insult.

I did not know about GDS. But that sounds good too.

My main gripe at the moment is how the UK govt hands billions over to foreign companies to fail to produce anything properly useful.

Open Knowledge Library, Community Media Freedom all sounds great on paper, but can we trust them to remain unbiased

Well the key word is ‘open’ – it’ll contain all points of view whether the govt likes it or not. The biggest problem will be keeping it from turning into a DM comments style shitfest.

but at the first sign of rebellion he became like every hard-left politician before him, “if you’re not with me, you’re against me and must be destroyed” he purged his cabinet

Not quite – but that’s for the other thread.

I mean, as far as i’m aware most gov. coding bodies try to use as much open source software as possible, and most developers have public github accounts that you can pull from anyway.

It’s not about using open source – it’s about letting everyone see what you are doing and crucially *join in*. So when the big companies start producing obviously stupid shite, they’ll a) be called up on it and b) people could change it.

Eventually (maybe) the big companies will give up as it’ll be too difficult to milk, and people with a vested interest (i.e. us) will be able to contribute. And it’ll all be great.. maybe.. 🙂

But it might also allow agencies to nick each other’s code and generify it, which is something I wish would be done anyway.

My main gripe at the moment is how the UK govt hands billions over to foreign companies to fail to produce anything properly useful.

I know a couple of people involved in managing those projects. It’s not the supplier, it’s the customer.

I’ve worked on many. And yes, it is the customer *to a point* but the supplier ought to know how to do it better, IMO. But it’s not in their interests to change the business model.

It’ll only change when we move away from simply paying companies to produce a system that does X, and start planning a coherent government programme.

It’s not about using open source – it’s about letting everyone see what you are doing and crucially *join in*.

I very much doubt you’ll be able to join in but you will be able to watch.

My main gripe at the moment is how the UK govt hands billions over to foreign companies to fail to produce anything properly useful.

10bn for IT systems that underpins government’s £500bn in annual revenue collection.

I very much doubt you’ll be able to join in but you will be able to watch.

I honestly would join in, if I could. You’d need a different kind of OS license, I reckon. You could interview/vet people wishing to contribute.. however I’d probably fall foul of some clauses in my contract.

You could interview/vet people wishing to contribute.

Like applying for a job. Why not join GDS and get paid for contributing?

Only says encourage sharing of open source software and hardware.

1) Encourage means little really

2) Hardware? Not sure what that means at all.

Does he understand the difference between a manifesto and a slogan?
Not a lot of rigour in that one. Unlike all the others.

Given so much of the code that’s written for government projects, like GP patient database, doesn’t actually work I would have thought it best to keep out of the public domain.

Surely such a policy would encourage developers / software co’s to keep anything intesting and efficient they have developed away from government projects so basically old tech inefficient code only ?

IME the people commissioning the development of apps from the public purse don’t even ask for the source code to be delivered to them with the app.

In fact I remember asking a highly paid solutions development manager about source code and they just looked at me as if i had landed from another planet.

IME the people commissioning the development of apps from the public purse don’t even ask for the source code to be delivered to them with the app.

Is that because it’s usually sold with an over-priced support contract?

That’s what we do in the banking sector anyway*.

*Mwah hah haaaaa

Given so much of the code that’s written for government projects, like GP patient database, doesn’t actually work I would have thought it best to keep out of the public domain.

No, that’s the point – if it’s in the public domain it gets scrutinised. Suppliers would have to up their game, for sure. It would really change the way the industry’s run.

Surely such a policy would encourage developers / software co’s to keep anything intesting and efficient they have developed away from government projects so basically old tech inefficient code only ?

No – this kind of software doesn’t really work like that. There’s nothing complex in this, the trick is tying all the concepts and systems together, and aligning what they do. Which is why it’s a question of management competence not technical skills.

IME the people commissioning the development of apps from the public purse don’t even ask for the source code to be delivered to them with the app.

😯

Understood @molgrips

IME the people commissioning the development of apps from the public purse don’t even ask for the source code to be delivered to them with the app.

Because the govt agencies have outsourced everything, so they don’t employ many (or any) technically skilled staff. And good techies don’t work there because they don’t pay well.

Huge missed opportunity imo. Good business/technical level staff are vital to any organisation, and the civil service could pay a relatively small number of people 50% more to make the jobs attractive and gain some serious expertise. They could use big companies for bodies if needed, but the key would be to run it in-house and keep the skills and experience in-house. And if all agencies did that they could share what they’ve done instead of paying through the nose for the same stuff over and over again. I bet it’d save far more than the increased wage spend in even successful project costs never mind failed ones.

You wouldn’t keep bus engineers in house. You just buy a bus.

The more involved the state is in anything the worse it becomes.

No, that’s the point – if it’s in the public domain it gets scrutinised. Suppliers would have to up their game, for sure. It would really change the way the industry’s run.

ANY organisation, commercial or public sector should be checking individuals GitHub presence before hiring them IMHO – sort of pre peer review.

Because the govt agencies have outsourced everything, so they don’t employ many (or any) technically skilled staff. And good techies don’t work there because they don’t pay well.

Not strictly true. They are taking on more contractors in a blended resource model, but it’s difficult to hire permies on £50k a year when contracting devs are trousering £550 per day.

GDS have shaken things up, but jeezus christ it’s full of smug hipsters. Rumour has it that they are about to be toast too.

You wouldn’t keep bus engineers in house. You just buy a bus.

That’s because busses are very well understood and well specified, as are the terms of service.

Government IT is like going out to buy a bus when you have no idea what a bus is, how much it should cost, how to look after it, how many people you want to transport, if you need to transport people or goods, no-one’s ever been on a bus, and you’re all in fact fish who have never left a bowl, can’t drive and have no limbs to operate vehicles with.

We might have had a problem with public sector ownership and operation of things in the past, but outsourcing it is not the solution. It costs us enormous sums of cash, and we don’t gain any skills whatsoever. Given the results, it’s very difficult to defend the private sector in all this.

I’m with molgrips! Most of the software companies offer is cutting edge, and essence of software used for government schemes are very it is an exercise of stitching together stuff in as flexible way as possible so that as the requirements change as the problem evolves and is better understood, the software can evolve. Also ideally settings some standards for some data transfer to allow different systems to integrate.

Open source code is guaranteed to be reviewed at least as well as closed source project as you are adding reviewers.

It a bit off topic and ad hominem (apologies), but is it relevant that a man wanting to be the Prime Minister of the UK asks someone who supports the IRA (from Guido Fawkes ) to write anyting at all?

But then, I suppose Jezza himself has a bit of history as put here by Nick Cohen.

Apparently if asked about any of this his office refuses to comment on “historical matters”.

…is it relevant…

No, not here. This thread is about Govt IT.

Look at how many Linux-based set-top-boxes and other devices don’t have publicly available code.

And why would they?

The Linux OS bits will be available. The proprietary bits won’t. All within terms of GPL.

I used to work at one of those set top box joints. They were really rather on top of the legal aspects of open source code. On account of not wanting to get taken to court and being forced to give their entire code base away.

ANY organisation, commercial or public sector should be checking individuals GitHub presence before hiring them IMHO – sort of pre peer review.

Why do you need a public GitHub presence to prove your competance ?

What if you are actually too busy providing solutions at work to indulge in geeky stuff in a public github repository ?

What if you don’t use GIT – you use something else and you aren’t going to change because your SCC solution is perfectly functional ?

Is a track record of producing solutions less important than some geeky piece of tech ?

The Linux OS bits will be available. The proprietary bits won’t. All within terms of GPL.

Surely that’s LGPL?

Surely that’s LGPL?

that would require the government to accept modificaiton from people not employed by them.

Not sure if that is a good idea at all.

And who is going to be interested in developing government software in their free time ?

It a bit off topic and ad hominem (apologies), but is it relevant that a man wanting to be the Prime Minister of the UK asks someone who supports the IRA (from Guido Fawkes ) to write anyting at all?

This was raised in the Corbyn thread, probably best left there or this thread will be derailed.

As I said, it’d need a new open source license I reckon.

And who is going to be interested in developing government software in their free time ?

Develop? Not sure. Scrutinise though maybe.

As I said, it’d need a new open source license I reckon.

not sure they can do that if based on GNU software – take those license or use something else.

If they don’t actually use much GNU stuff they could port to BSD instead.

Scrutinise though maybe.

And who’se going to do that ? If it was bleeding edge stuff then maybe.

Otherwise just hackers ?