@d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e A minister is not a great idea, partly for the reasons Dave mentions, but all that aside it would still end up with the equivalent of appointing a career criminal as Justice minister. (Justice usually goes to a lawyer). Also, there’s no evidence a subject specialist in that role would develop policy any faster. 

Far better for any tech related policy to be developed through a broader society lens (but with help from decent expert advisors). 

 @29b9efc5 yep - advisors who don't have deeply conflicted interests (which, to date, has always been the problem - the advisors are always compromised with vested interests) @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @29b9efc5 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e Like sending Mel Gibson in to run a synagogue. 

 @44a8e2ed the key problem, that needs to be addressed before any positive steps will be taken, is that the powers that be need to be disabused of the idea that they're doing 'just fine'. The status quo has to be accepted to be an abject failure, as many of us have long explained (to our personal detriment). Of course, in this world where decision makers only accept 'constructive' comments (i.e. sycophancy), that'll never happen.  @29b9efc5 @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @29b9efc5 @3862d25e And circling back my agreement on the cartoon wasn't specifically on any need for a specific Minister but the "Urgency" and the visible aging of the advocate for change as government stalls.  

My climate activist friends are still advocating but some are aging out of energy needed to achieve change. Just as well the younger generations are marching ahead albeit without power to effect transformations needed. 

 @44a8e2ed I think BigTech is our 'digital CO2 index'. They are the digital analogue to climate catastrophe, and global  gov'ts' responses have been equally as impotent. We score own-goal after own-goal.   @29b9efc5 @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e Don’t be too hard on our leaders. 

To my knowledge there isn’t a single government anywhere in the world that gets this right. Occasionally there are brief moments when one gets a few things right for a short while, but those projects return to the status quo fairly quickly. 

We have fewer resources, less clout, we are literally “technology takers”. It is much harder for us to break out of the rut than a country like, say, France or Germany. 

 @d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e A recent example of this is with the old copper telephone network. Even if we wanted to maintain our landline network as a fall back for emergencies (and it has been discussed) we can’t because the necessary hardware isn’t made any more. The skills required to maintain the equipment are dying out. 

It’s kind of cute how Cuba managed to survive with 1950s American cars, but that’s not a practical way to manage a modern economy. 

 @29b9efc5 there's a wilful blindness, even from the folks who're employed for their expertise in the subject. I spend all my time face-in-palm when I see how, for example, universities who literally train people to work with digital technology, consistently hobble all their learners with dumbass policy created by precisely the least worthy of doing so.  @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @29b9efc5 further on that thought: universities should be merging their comp sci and operational IT departments, employing their students to provide services rather than the (mostly) Microsoft drones (who know literally nothing else) they currently employ. @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @29b9efc5 I'm just working on documenting my own vision of how we need to change to get out of our current hole. I don't believe it's a question of resources. We do, however,  need to disqualify the big global corporate players  as unfit for purpose. That might require us to drop out of some "FTAs" that aren't really worth being part of in any case (and were never 'free' in any sense). 
 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

“That might require us to drop out of some "FTAs" that aren't really worth being part of in any case (and were never 'free' in any sense).”

That simply is not going to happen. At least not in order to fix up government technology decisions. 

 @29b9efc5 well, then we're probably entirely screwed, because we'll be secretly sued into oblivion if we do anything to try to rectify the current dysfunctional IT landscape.  @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @29b9efc5 but, the fact is that politicians - woefully uninformed, based on my own consultation with several of them - got us into this mess, so they can get us out of it. We already know that the advantages to NZ of being part of #CPTPPA were 'marginal at best' at the time of signup, and I'm quite sure that few if any those scant benefits are being enjoyed by anybody other than the already too wealthy.  @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @29b9efc5 what we need is a new type of inter-governmental agreement "a cooperative technology pact"  or something which talks about gov'ts sharing resources to create mutually relevant #Libre tech solutions and agreed open standards @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e The alternative is to be a more vulnerable version of Cuba. I don’t think anyone wants that. 

 @29b9efc5 hmm. I'm not sure you're seeing the same vision I am, so I guess you'll have to wait to see my explanation. But proprietary software has no place in crucial gov't services, nor in the storage of crucial data to the people and posterity. To date, we've paid to be colonised digitally, to the detriment of our culture and our sovereignty.    @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @d72d5211 @44a8e2ed @3862d25e As I've said in the past, I don't think that idea is fundamentally wrong. 

 @29b9efc5 ok, well that's a start :) - so we need to work out what needs to change to make obvious the negative impact of the status quo, and to make that approach no longer workable. Realising, of course, that these corporations (who have vast back-room influence globally) have literally tuned the global trade and local policy decisions to make what they offer the *only viable option*. We need people who fully realise this to be making policy decisions.   @44a8e2ed @3862d25e 

 @29b9efc5 I think the Cuba analogy isn't helpful in this context. It is based on the idea that huge capital is required to sustain the status quo. That's precisely what the sort of a tech transition I'm proposing *doesn't* require. The one I'm proposing is about focusing on local/domestic industry - the dependence shifts to the commodity hardware level, where there's lots of competition & some open standards. But I'm getting ahead of myself.    @44a8e2ed @3862d25e