Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Online petitions documents from PICT'.
(Word document)
Sent: 29 March 2007 09:34
To: [name], [name];[name]; SILK, Paul; [name]; [name]; [name]; PULLINGER, John
Subject:
I attended the EPRI conference last week, which was focussed on using the Internet. (Dominic, John, this is the one where a presentation highlighted www.parliament.uk as a good practice example). I did some rough notes from speakers, see attached - apologies they are in very rough format. Significant issues were:
- That many countries are already piloting interactive e-democracy
- Those countries have identified the issue is changing the way Members work
- There are some good practice egs in Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands to look at
Regards
Joan
Notes from EPRI conference on Information and Communication Technology
“Simplifying the Complex - Creating space for complex topics on the web”
Lisbon 19 & 20 March
Some relevant issues for UK:
MPs wanting to write notes on legislative paper, may be a barrier to a more electronic chamber. How do they manage this in Holland? Portugal?
[names], Dublin, experimenting with Members IT support on the basis that the service is charged at full unit rate in Dissolution in May 2007
Portugal been e-petitioning for 2 years
Dublin conference next year may concentrate on measuring the benefits of new web interactive services, e.g. voter turn out increased?
Principle of Web2 is information exchange between politicians and the public, not just communication outwards.
If we are thinking of web2 effectiveness we might use scenario building to test the political impact. That is scenarios of what might happen? What could responses be? What impact on workloads, political turnout?
Jaime Gama, President of the Assembly of the Republic
e-petitions in Portugal for 2 years, has increased the work and requirements for responses
The challenge is to modernise (e-enable) plenary sessions. Portugal will be starting with Senate chamber and modernising the room (currently traditional semi circular layout) with IT equipment and full access to all data, linked to main database, using Audio Visual IT to provide supporting data and images from the records in order to enhance the debate in accessing remote information, not just the traditional debates of the nineteenth century.
Aim is the expand the electronic cooperation of work between Parliaments and the EU. Portugal will launch the Lisbon e-agenda when Portugal holds Presidency of the EU.
Jiri Oberfalzer,Member Czech senate
EPRI is for the exchange of experiences, large and small. E-government makes decision making more transparent. The Public administration (MPs) must be involved right from the start in order to manage e-democracy for the future. Learning from each other will help each country to decide what to do.
EPRI should host a catalogue of systems and initiatives
Parliamentarians must be involved right from the start, not just the technicians. We must close the gap between IT and non-IT users for e-government to work. Digital literacy is vital and must be prioritised by politicians, and will lead to citizen centred and e-enabled services. The new IT can help involve citizens more in democracy.
Czech Parliament have a KM database, and broadcast all meetings on the web (not just procedural, also social)
Bridie Nathanson,expert in e-democracy, e-governance and political communications
Recommends [name]'s The Cluetran Manifesto, an analysis of how the web changes communities
Society has very little control over Web2, on line communities bypass political communities. Parliaments, such as the Netherlands, are experimenting in devolved communication strategies, putting Parliamentary information where others can use it (RSS feeds)
The inability to control the messages, mean that Parliaments must adopt new strategies, eg USA, Canada. Tactics include “fish where the fish are”, that is use existing e-communities, treat voters with respect and value their inputs, support those who give messages for you.
www.polpit.eu or www.epri.org will host brains trust for Parliaments in May 2007
Luiz Antonio Eira, Legislative Advisor ICT, Chamber of Deputies of Brazil
Brasil Chamber use Internet based services. From their 2002 strategic plan there were 4 goals:
Focus on legislative process
Transparency of all acts
Interactions with society
Useful information for citizens
Progress to date:
legislation on line information for plenary sessions and AV speeches on line within 2 minutes of the speech, with text available within 30 minutes of the speech. AV on line is technology independent, no need for media player
Bill tracker - blocks text, citizen can register for email alerts at end/start of stages. FAQs on most searched Bills, linked to comparative information, built from most searched pages, linking newspapers, TV, radio channel. Produces news pushed to other medias' channels.
Internet for Members provides voting and attendance figures. From march 07, will also have more interactive facility Members/Public.
Brazil's web site cannot be static. It is not just our published information, it also has to have interaction, with citizen comments. For instance feedback on Members' speeches, using simple on-line forms. Technology auto-tracks emails from the public, recording reply/no replies.
Developing a separate site for children, almost the same content but explained
Internet in thee anti chamber allows MPs to catch up with speeches they have missed before entering the chamber.
Website use has risen from 2.5m hits in 2002 to 14m in 2006,. showing a measure of success of the strategy
[name], Head of IT Portuguese Parliament
Modernising the Parliamentary procedures with support of technology since 1999.
JV's background in business process. They have simplified the Portuguese Parliamentary procedure in a phased development. This affects the way MPs work and what they do. All MPs can access electronic information, for instance they have made PCs available to all MPs (desktops and laptops), different committee rooms are equipped with IT, MPs use their own websites including personal blogs is they wish. All the technology required is provided, e.g. PDAs, 3G, access from any part of the world. All of Parliament is wireless.
Emphasis on developing digital signatures for electronic documents for the legislative process. All laws now have to be available digitally. Certified all users in the legislative process. REDELEX is the Portuguese legislative procedure database, and it can all be certified digitally. The Assembly has set up its own certification (ECAR) process.
The next steps were to introduce digital signatures into the electronic workflow and administrative processes. From 7 Aug 2003 all documents had to be handed in digitally. From 15 Sept 2003 they ceased publication on paper. Now everything is available on the Internet.
Digital signature is linked to ID cards, e.g. health, etc
Assembly is part of the Portuguese GSI/digital secure signature. From 24 Oct 2006 all documents signed off GSI. Now all technology in place, now recruiting technicians to work it, hope to issue the digital certificate very soon to publish the official journal. Validate digital signature through Active Directory.
[name], Head if ICT, Chamber of Deputies, Italy
2 year effort to improve website and make it accessible. 11 Dec 2006 a new website was launched with accessibility principles. It cost 200k euros and 2 years of work
Historic publication of proceedings on the website. 2m proceedings dossiers are made available on the Internet. Use Hummingbird EDM for storage of documents - saved in PDF docs and can be searched in full text mode. Very powerful search engine - search at paragraph level.
The initiative was to improve the website rather than audience segmentation.
[name], MP Swedish Parliament
Worked with IT in a hospital before becoming an MP
Voting numbers have been in decline over 40 years in Sweden, as has participation in politics. Distrust of politicians has grown. Led Swedish parliament to think about what it wanted to do about IT and to think about what citizens wanted. They asked the question “what are blogs for, why, for whom?” and went on to ask who blogs were for - the Swedish Foreign Minister has a blog, but as a private person, or as a Minister?
If you want a blog to be discovered, then you must advertise it in a newspaper.
Email use is greater than blog use at present. Email use has too high an expectation both in the uncontrollable volume and in the expectations that the sender has of a quick response. CW gets 750 emails per day, including petition type emails. How can he manage this number?
Librarians and the Media need training too on how they can use IT, and help politicians to make the most of the information available.
[name], e-representative Dutch Parliament, founder Gov2u
Electronic filtering, information alerts for MPs. Similar to portals
Remote worker/voting for MPs being considered. Working remotely as a Parliamentarian. Experiment at Westminster City Council.
-----Original Message-----
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: 09 October 2007 18:14
To: [name]
Cc: HUTTON, Mark
Subject: FW: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed (ATTACHMENT DELETED, EXEMPT UNDER S34)
[name]
We spoke. Here is a bit of a reprise of your questions. I am sorry that I could not do tracked changes.
As we discussed, I am copying this directly to Mark also.
Happy to meet tomorrow, if you would find that useful.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [name]
Sent: 09 October 2007 14:41
To: SILK, Paul
Subject: RE: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed
Enclosed *may* work.
-----Original Message-----
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: Tue 10/9/2007 12:38 PM
To: [name]
Subject: RE: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed
[name]
Can you send me this in a way that I can track changes, please?
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [name]
Sent: 09 October 2007 11:23
To: SILK, Paul; MILLER, Joan; [name]; [name]
Subject: RE: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed
A revised draft is enclosed.
-----Original Message-----
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: Tue 10/9/2007 9:02 AM
To: [name]; MILLER, Joan; [name]; [name]
Subject: RE: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed
[name]
We spoke yesterday, and you are speaking to Mark Hutton later today.
I take entirely your point that the Committee must not be deluded into thinking that your mock-up can simply go into production - this is the first architect sketch rather than the building. I guess that Joan will want to emphasise that at the beginning. However, I do think that the live demonstration you gave us yesterday would go down very well with the Committee.
Some of the issues we ought to raise with the Committee (which complement what you have written) are:
Do we need to distinguish between an orderly petition which is not adopted by a Member, and a disorderly petition? Does either of these have any visibility on the website? In the case of the former, I suppose it could sit in a sort of limbo on the Intranet site waiting for a friendly Member to come along and take it up (like, for example, a Private Peer's Bill brought from the Lords). (In general, I think that the pre-adoption phases of petitions are the most difficult ones to resolve, assuming that we stick to the idea that a petition is not a valid petition until sponsored by a Member.)
What do we mean by the Petitioner? Is there to be one nominated individual in the case of each Petition who is able to deal with the administration of the Petition? In what areas does the Petitions Office deal only with him/her, and in what circumstances with all signatories?
How deeply does the Petitions Office need to search to authenticate the identity of petitioners/signatories?
To what extent are the rules for petitions mechanically enforced and to what extent are they enforced by human agency? (The more helpful we want to be, the less we will go down the mechanical route, I should have thought)
What control does the sponsoring Member have over a petition? Can s/he decide to abandon it prematurely? What is its status then? What happens if the Member dies/is suspended/joins the government?
On some of your questions, I imagine that there is already data protection good practice (or even law). If that is the case, I do not think we should pose these as questions where the committee has a free hand to decide.
Finally, it might be worth illustrating the process diagrammatically, and it might also be worth dividing your questions into three groups: pre-adoption issues; issues which arise when the petition is open for signature; closure and presentation issues. Some of the questions arise in more than one of these areas.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [name]
Sent: 08 October 2007 15:22
To: SILK, Paul; MILLER, Joan; [name]; [name]
Subject: Petitions 'issues summary', PDF enclosed
Just a draft.
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: 17 September 2007 13:09
To: HUTTON, Mark
Cc: [name]; [name]
Subject: FW: Petitions can make a difference - new report
Mark
Just in case you were not already aware
Paul
From: [name]
Sent: Mon 17/09/2007 11:17
To: SILK, Paul; [name]
Subject: FW: Petitions can make a difference - new report
Morning comrades. I hope all is well
I have received this from my Aussie contacts. May be worth following up as we proceed with e-petitions?
See you next week
[name]
-----Original Message-----
From: [name] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 17 September 2007 04:33
Subject: Petitions can make a difference - new report
#########################################
House of Representatives - Email alert service
#########################################
Issued by: House of Representatives Liaison & Projects Office, Monday 17 September 2007
Petitions can make a difference
Petitions continue to be a very popular way in which Australians let their representatives know about their concerns and ask for remedies. Just over one million people signed about 900 petitions to the House of Representatives between 2004 and 2007. Despite this popularity, petitions are not always an effective means of communicating with the House.
Today (17 September), the House of Representatives Procedure Committee tabled its report, Making a difference: Petitioning the House of Representatives. The report identifies a clear path forward to improve the way in which the House considers petitions.
A Petitions Committee
The most significant recommendation is the establishment of a petitions committee, similar to that used in the Scottish Parliament, to receive and process petitions and to inquire and report on any action to be made.
“The House has to have a much better mechanism of considering petitions because it is the body to which petitions are addressed,” Chair of the Committee Margaret May said.
“We see this new petitions committee as having the power to hold inquiries into petitions, inviting principal petitioners to come before the committee and explain their concerns, and making relevant recommendations to Government. A petitions committee would substantially streamline what is currently a very cumbersome process and would give a new status to petitions in the House,” she said.
Encouraging government to respond
The committee also recommends that Ministers be expected to respond to the petitions referred to them. Submissions made clear that one of the greatest disappointments to petitioners is the perception that Government does not heed petitions.
Mrs May said, “by reviewing all petitions received and making targeted recommendations to Government, the new petitions committee would assist Government in improving its response rate.”
Introducing electronic petitions
The committee has also recommended that an electronic petitions system be introduced, so as to bring petitions into the 21st century.
“If we accept that petitions are the most direct link between citizens and their representatives, then we also need to accept that communication methods are changing—electronic petitions are already a big part of modern democracy. Individuals are currently making their opinions known across a whole range of websites and blogs—we must improve the way in which those same individuals channel those views legitimately to the House of Representatives,” said the Chair.
The committee has also made a series of recommendations to streamline the way in which petitions are administered and presented in the House. The committee thanks all those who provided submissions to the inquiry, particularly those with vast petitioning experience.
For media comment: House Procedure Committee Chair, Margaret May, phone xxxxxx
For background information and copies of the report: please contact the committee secretariat on (02) 6277 4670 or visit the inquiry website at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/petitioning/report.htm
Issued by:
[name], media adviser, Liaison & Projects Office, House of Representatives Tel:[xxxxxx] wk, [xxxxxxxx]mob.
Have you got About the House magazine yet?
Visit: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/news/
To unsubscribe from the House of Representatives email alert service, please send an email with "unsubscribe from email alert service" in the header to [email address]
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: 18 July 2007 12:46
To: HUTTON, Mark
Subject: FW: E-petions in the Tasmanian Parliament
Mark
You might find this of interest
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [name]
Sent: 27 June 2007 11:23
To: [name]
Cc: SILK, Paul
Subject: E-petions in the Tasmanian Parliament
[name],
Browsing through the Tasmanian Parliament I came across their e-petitions site (http://210.8.42.131/view/EPetitions%5FTAS%5FAssembly/AboutEPetitions.aspx?LIndex=1 .
I thought this would be of interest to you. Please let me know the progress on your research and if I can help in anyway.
Kind regards,
[name]
Information from within PICT on E-petitioning
Procedural Systems Group Notes
Thursday 22 March 2007
E-Petitions
There are various models to draw on such as the Scottish Parliament, No 10 site and the Portuguese Government c/o VL. However, it will depend on whether the MPs wish to pursue it.
Procedural Systems Group Notes
Thursday 19 April 2007
3) Non-divisions work
a. Verbal update - e-petitions (GP)
GP is drafting a paper for next Monday's Procedure Committee. The aim is to register with the Committee that this will be a difficult issue and invite them to engage PICT with the process if they wish. GP will circulate the finished document.
Action: GP
Procedural Systems Group Notes
Thursday 26 April 2007
Interface with the Internet Project
There was a discussion of governance issues for the Internet project. It was also reported that the expected Procedure Committee report on petitions had been deferred. PICT would be producing an initial paper on the Portuguese experience.
ICT Procedural Group Minutes
Thursday 24 May 2007
5. Procedure Committee Report (Public Petitions and EDMs) (GP)
GP outlined the main recommendations of the Report and their ICT implications. Further work included authentication and e-petitions. GP is producing a memo on e-petitions for the Procedure Committee on 11 June. It will list all the technical concerns and any ideas on authentication would be gratefully received. Email GP and copy to PS.
Extract edited - exempt under s34
ICT Procedural Group Minutes
Thursday 21 June 2007
2. Modernisation Committee Report
JC reported on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee which had implications for PICT: the proposal for topical questions would have consequences for e-tabling and Table Office PIMS, while the proposal for hand-held devices in the Chamber might cause technical problems. Both showed the need to be able to react agilely and speedily to Member-driven imperatives.
ICT Procedural Group Minutes
Thursday 28 June 2007
E- Petitions
Consultations are taking place at the moment.
This piece of work would sit better under the Procedural section of the Intranet.
ICT Procedural Group Minutes
Thursday 15 November 2007
… Work mandated by requirements of the House (such as e-petitions) should have a separate budget so in this instance the group could take the role of subject-matter experts and explain how the work could be provided…
Future Meetings
There are 5 more meetings before the Christmas recess. PS asked if anyone had ideas for the agendas.
Next week JP will talk to the Group about e-petitions, and perhaps RB could show the Group what he has been working on.
ICT Procedural Group Minutes
Thursday 22 November 2007
E-democracy Conference - e-petitions (Jessica Parkinson)
Earlier this month [name], [name] and [name] from the PICT web centre attended an interesting e-Democracy seminar. The speakers below discussed the value of online petitions.
Stephen Coleman, Professor or Political Communication and Director of Research, University of Leeds.
Jimmy Leach, Head of Communications, 10 Downing Street
Ann Macintosh, Professor of Digital Governance, University of Leeds.
Richard Hough, Assistant Clerk to the Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament.
Jimmy Leach discussed the 10 Downing St site.
Their e-Petitions are a digital version of the paper process.
The 10 Downing Street site generates an auto response if more than 200 people sign a petition which is more economical than writing a letter to each person.
A lot of people wrongly presume that by signing a petition they could generate a debate in the Chamber. The Government does not have a mandate to do this.
_____________________________________________________________
Extract edited - Exempt under s34
Papers - extract
Candidate Projects March 06
9 |
E-Petitions |
The Commons Procedure Committee are likely to recommend that parliament has an electronic petitioning system, similar to No. 10 Downing Street.
|
To respond appropriately to the committee |
Agree how this type of system should be managed by PICT and prove an ability to provide such systems in a timely and cost effective manner. |
1= |
Commence market review in anticipation of Procedure Committee statement of requirements
Create PICT Proj Mandate |
Robert Brook
Terry Dailey |
Article from In the Picture - the PICT newsletter
E-petitions for MPs investigated
You may have read that the Commons Procedure Committee is thinking about whether a system of e-petitions could be introduced in the House. This might be something like the e-petitions system No 10 Downing Street has, but will have to take account of the way in which written petitions are presented to the Commons by individual MPs at present.
Written petitions are administered from the Journal Office in the Commons, and it is also the Journal Office which provides the staff of the Procedure Committee. PICT staff have been working closely with their colleagues in the Journal Office so that Members can be as well informed about the options as possible.
Some mock-ups have been presented, and the complexity of an electronic system explained. D-Pict and other staff have also attended a couple of private meetings with Committee Members. This collaboration has been a good example of the way in which we and our colleagues in procedural areas can - and must - work together in partnership. Expect to hear more about e-petitions over the months to come as the Committee begins the public phase of its work.
Read more at:
ePetitions Options Appraisal
Project |
ePetitions Options Appraisal |
Project ID |
INF07002 |
|||||||
Major Project |
|
Date |
04/02/08 |
|||||||
Sub-Programme |
Procedural Sub-Programme |
Doc. Version |
Version 0.1 |
|||||||
PICT SRO / BRM |
[name] |
Proposed Project Mgr |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||
Business Need |
The commons procedure committee is currently holding an inquiry into ePetitions. PICT has so far assisted the Committee in providing advice with regards to the technical issues involved, a ball-park estimation of costs, timeframe and a prototype solution to inform the committee's deliberations. After the publication of the committee's report (expected sometime around Easter) PICT will need to be in a position to issue an Invitation to Tender (ITT) if and when the House agrees to the proposals when the report in debated (expected to be May/June). Due to the timeframes involved |
|||||||||
Business Priority |
Member requested service to provide an ePetitions system to enhance the `connecting with the public' agenda. |
|||||||||
Project Objectives |
To provide a costed options appraisal in order for PICT to issue a ITT if and when the House agrees to the committee's proposal. |
|||||||||
Outline Business Case |
|
|||||||||
Business Stakeholders |
The main business stakeholders are:
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
Business Strategy / Plan Alignment |
Supporting the business processes of the House and connecting with the Public.
|
|||||||||
PICT Strategic / Programme Alignment |
Due to the potential scale and visibility of this project an outsourced technically specialist solution is likely to be required. A strategic solution will be sought that will provide a scaleable and reliable solution.
|
|||||||||
Inter-dependencies with other projects |
Input or Output |
Other project |
Description of Interdependency |
Agreed Date |
Criticality |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Other constraints and Dependencies |
|
|||||||||
Initial (Rough) Resource Estimates |
Team |
This |
Next |
Future |
||||||
(person days) |
Project Management: |
20 days |
|
- |
||||||
|
Business Relationship Management |
15 days |
|
|
||||||
|
Business Process Management: |
32 days |
|
- |
||||||
|
Procurement Support: |
10 days |
|
- |
||||||
|
Technical Services: |
5 days |
|
- |
||||||
|
Development Support: |
15 days |
|
- |
||||||
|
||||||||||
PICT Assessment |
No of users: 60 million
Delivery time-frame |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
Project Mandate Scope Approval |
Name |
[SRO / BRM] |
Date |
|
||||||
|
Signature |
|
||||||||
|
Name |
[Programme Manager] |
Date |
|
||||||
|
Signature |
|
||||||||
|
Name |
[Programme Board] |
Date |
|
||||||
|
Signature |
|
||||||||
Start-Up Approved |
Name |
[Programme Board] |
Date |
|
||||||
|
Signature |
|
||||||||
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: SILK, Paul
Sent: 21 March 2007 10:08
To: [name]
Cc: [names][email address}
Subject: RE: E-petitioning the House of Commons
Can we arrange a date once you are back? If you give some times which would suit you and your colleagues in MySociety, we'll do all we can to fit in.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [email address}
Sent: 21 March 2007 10:04
To: SILK, Paul
Cc: [names]
Subject: Re: E-petitioning the House of Commons
Sorry, but I'm away from the 30th March to the 16th April, and can't do any meetings in that time.
best,
[name]
On 3/21/07, SILK, Paul <s.40> wrote:
[name]
Is 3 or 4 April still a possibility for a meeting? Look forward to
hearing from you.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [email address}
Sent: 15 March 2007 12:41
To: SILK, Paul
Cc: [names]; WOOD, Edward; PULLINGER, John; [names]
Subject: Re: E-petitioning the House of Commons
Hi guys,
OK, I guess combining things isn't going to work then. I'll see no10 on tues/weds. I won't be free after the 3rd April until the week commencing 16th.
best,
[name]
On 3/15/07, SILK, Paul <s.40> wrote:
I'm afraid that next week is no good for PICT because [name] is away then. As far as No 5 on your list is concerned (at least) I hope that we can arrange something (as I said in a previous e-mail to [name] on
3 or 4 April.
Paul Silk
-----Original Message-----
From: [email address]
Sent: 15 March 2007 12:23
To: SILK, Paul; [name]; [name]; WOOD, Edward;
PULLINGER, John; [name]; [name]
Cc: [email address]
Subject: Re: E-petitioning the House of Commons
Hi Everyone,
We really need to kill some multiple westminster birds one day next week, so I'm CCing Neil in the no10 web team in as well as the whole
mySociety team to see if we can manage a single day to cover a bunch
of things.
Hopefully we can fit these meetings into one day for max efficiency.
Things I would really like to talk about in the presence of you and the relevent mySociety developers:
1. Messagelabs email blocking in Parliament.
2. Historic Hansard and when it is available to have a go with it.
3. The current Hansard XML and when we can have a go with it.
4. The XML and/or processes currently underpinning committee transcript publication, and when we can have a go with that.
5. Meet PICT to talk about lessons from petitions 6. Meet no10 to talk about the priority and detail of feature changes on petitions.
This is quite a tall order, but if those of you want to meet can give as many dates and slots as possible next week, that'd be great.
thanks,
[name]
On 3/15/07, SILK, Paul wrote:
Many thanks both. I'll get back to you with some proposed dates
As soon as I can
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [name]
Sent: 15 March 2007 06:35
To: [name]
Cc: SILK, Paul; HUTTON, Mark;
Subject: Re: E-petitioning the House of Commons
I'm assuming this would be a meeting in Parliament?
I'm free a bit next week (beginning 19 March) - Monday, Wednesday or Thursday.
I'm on holiday the week beginning 26 March. Then am (currently) free any time from 2 April.
[name]
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:55:52AM +0000, [name] wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for mailing: I'm really pleased to know that discussions of such a sort are taking place. I would be happy to meet, but I think we should definitely have one of the main core team at the meeting, who I've CCed to see about dates.
In the meantime, here's the source code repository containing the petitions code, which is open source:
and here's [name]' description of the overall structure: http://www.mysociety.org/2006/12/08/under-the-bonnet/
I should also point out for balance's sake that Napier also supply petitioning software:
all the best,
[name]
On 3/14/07, SILK, Paul wrote:
[name]
You may be aware that there is a possibility that the Commons will begin a system of e-petitions to complement its very long-standing system for receiving written petitions.
The House's Procedure Committee recently visited No 10, and following
that, officials here and at No 10 agreed that we could approach you directly so that we could learn from you what issues have arisen so far in managing the No 10 site. Would it be possible for some of my technical colleagues and me to meet you, or whoever you think appropriate, over the next couple of weeks?
Many thanks
PAUL SILK
Director of Strategic Projects, PICT
Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0AA
020 7219 xxxx