Reader Comment – 08-31-09 – QHSR Dialogue

Reader Laurie Thomas, a maritime security professional, has posted a comment to yesterday’s blog about the start of the second stage of the QHSR Dialogue. Readers might remember that Laurie was not too thrilled with the first Dialogue; well her opinion has not changed too awfully much. While some of her earlier comments have been partially addressed in this version, Laurie has some additional critical observations that are worth reading and discussing. Inadequate Instructions Laurie writes that: “Maybe it's just me, but I find it distressing that the agency that is in charge of the internal security of my country produces a paragraph of directions that needs to be read three times before comprehension can occur.” I think that Laurie is referring to the instructions for conducting the ratings of the goals and objectives within those goals. The instructions were less than clear and I found it easier to play with the colored slides on the diagrams to figure out what was going on. Now I have spent a great deal of time in my professional life writing instructions for complex chemical operations. One of the things that I learned early on was that easy to understand instructions are anything but easy to write. Laurie points out another thing that I learned the hard way, beta-testing certainly helps make instructions clearer. One interesting thing is that Laurie took advantage of the discussion tool available on the site to provide detailed comments about the problems that she identified. The discussion of her ‘idea’ has proved to have some popularity with at least 10 participants rating her idea and a total of 7 comments having been posted to date. While this discussion is not directly related to the goals and objectives ideas, it is important to DHS and the web site ‘owners’ the National Academy of Public Administration. I learned yesterday that DHS and NAPA took similar comments made in the earlier dialogue to heart when they were making changes to the system used in the current Dilogue. So Laurie, take heart your comments will be heard. In the ongoing discussion Laurie notes that this topic is not really about Counterterrorism, but that there is no heading to place a discussion about the site itself. While this is true, there is a way to address site problems to NAPA. At the bottom of every page is a ‘Contact’ link. This will take one to a page where site complaints and comments can be filed. Control of Content Laurie also notes that “the comment function seems to be open to any kind of interchange between dialogue participants, including off-topic statements like ‘Get off my planet’.” The Dialogue was designed to allow for free flowing discussion of ideas. Unfortunately this may result in off-subject, off-color or just plain inappropriate remarks. Users of this site do need to remember that this is a public discussion and a certain amount of decorum is necessary for a real exchange of ideas to take place. NAPA does note that this is a moderated web site and they do reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments from the system. Their five deadly sins, according to their Moderation Policy page are:

“Threats or incitements to violence “Use of obscenity “Duplicative or substantially duplicative postings by the same person or entity “Postings seeking employment or containing advertisements for a commercial product or service “Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or infringing on a copyright or trademark”

Specific complaints about inappropriate remarks or complaints about having remarks improperly removed from the site may be addressed by clicking on the ‘Contact’ link on the bottom of any page. Do Not Be Discouraged I would like to remind everyone concerned that this is a new and unique social networking tool being developed by a semi-governmental agency (NAPA). It does take a lot of work to make such a tool readily useable. While there are many problems with the site, I am very well pleased with the progress that has been made to date and I think NAPA is to be thanked for their efforts. More importantly though, everyone needs to remember that the goal of this site is to seek public participation in a very unusual process. We have a unique chance to help to influence in some small way the course of DHS over the next four years. To fail to avail ourselves of that chance because of a less than perfectly designed tool seems to be more than a little short sighted. I urge Laurie and all readers of this blog to take the time to contribute from your store of knowledge and experience to this Dialogue. It may take time that is in short supply, but the government has a great need for our insight. This small contribution will help to make this world a better place.