CC BY 4.0 g0v contributors at https://g0v.hackpad.com/XKPGjyr4hUG
From Sonia Roubini, PDF14 Conference Coordinator and writer for TechPresident.com:
The g0v report states that two problems with using tools such as Facebook as instruments to encourage civic engagement are 1. that online participation doesn’t translate into offline action or collaboration, and 2. that a generation gap prevents the online and offline from collaborating.
Some additional questions, thank you!
Q6: How big is this movement?
問：零時政府的規模有多大？
As of July 2014:
Q7: Where did it come from?
問：零時政府從哪來的？
Please see here for the historical writeup.
應該是拿http://g0v.asia/tw/#Q0.2 這段?
Q8: Who is its base?
問：零時政府的由哪些人奠基？
"Nobody" — that is to say, oneself — is the standard answer.
Although there were a small group of people who contributed on the initial naming, manifesto and the 0th hackathon, we consider the vibrant open-source community scene in Taiwan as the real foundation of the g0v movement.
可以說沒有人嗎？還是列共同發起人? clkao提到台灣開放源碼社群的能量累積也是基礎之一吧
Q9: Why is it attractive to people?
問：零時政府為何吸引人？
Because in g0v, we do not have power struggles or emotional theatrics seen in certain organizations, but rather motivates ourselves by personal preference and hands-on contributions. Such collaboration produced plenty of impressive projects, such as moedict and the open political donations project.
Collaborating with many awesome people here, as long as one is willing to contribute, one would be touched with the felling of "so I can help out, too!" This sense of acceleration, once tasted, would prompt an individual to make more contributions.
因為大家在零時政府沒有一般組織的權力或感情糾葛，全仰賴個人喜好以及就動手做事來論事。而且零時政府在大家的合作之下，完成了許多令人覺得不可思議的成就，如萌典、政治獻金等。
在零時政府能和許多厲害的人合作，只要願意貢獻，就會有「原來我也可以幫上忙」的感動。而切身感受到某些事情正在加速進行，就會令人更想投注夠多心力。
Q1: Has g0v.tw really worked to solve these problems? If so, how?
The bimonthly large (100-700 people) hackathons gathers together people who usually only interact online to focus on problems and come up with feasible solutions. In addition to the large hackathon, all types of similar smaller hackathons have also been developed to engage in the necessary discussion on projects and work out some solutions together. In addition, g0v also constantly works to break down information barriers and help many people who are not IT experts to cross the threshold and more easily get involved in projects and start cooperation.
Hence, even though we didn’t work very hard, we still solved the problems. :-)
Among the specific actions, I think that the use of collaboration tools was the most outstanding. By collaboration tools we mean platforms such as Hackpad, GitHub, Google Drive, and EtherCalc, that can be used by lots of people to collaborate in real-time. Its distinguishing feature is that everybody can make edits in a shared space. The ordinary online media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, Blogs or Forums really are just communication channels, not collaboration tools. These platforms allows for ping-pong-like interaction, one after the other, but not to create something together like building a sand castle.
Our engineers even created new tools in order to collaborate — Hackfoldr. Later on these collaboration tools, originally were written to organize material from hackathons, suddenly became participatory media channels during social upheaval. That was a rather unexpected side effect.
To pick back up from the beginning where I said we didn’t work very hard; that is only because we didn’t set out to make these specific tools. Instead, people who has been influenced deeply by the open source community would naturally grow to use collaborative tools such as GitHub. As many of the co-founders and active participants of g0v hail from Taiwan’s active and large open source community, that larger culture has also taken root in g0v’s culture.
In addition, many of the participants of the open source movement have practical skills and a DIY hands-on spirit. It doesn’t matter where people with these characteristics go, they will always be outstanding problem-solvers, in the social domain just as much as in the technical domains.
Q2: What does g0v.tw do differently to ensure that social media can actually be a platform for social production and doesn’t experience the problems listed above?
A key for our practice of social production is to be actively inclusive; the "non-partisan, unbiased and not for sale" part in the manifesto preemptively rejects divisive practices that would exclude others.
As a result, g0v has been likened to a large railroad station — i.e., a shared space for creative minds to meet, embarking on common projects, and for solutions to emerge.
Instead of specific causes or institutionalized technologies, our collaborative-space-based community is not about upgrading from A to B; rather it is the totality of all techniques that are invented by individual agents in the community. These techniques evolve into immersive experiences, accessible to all who are around to take part.
At the time of this writing, we observe three main ethos during the immersion:
These immersive and inclusive practices turn detractors into contributors, lowering the barriers of collaboration and action. Through a shared sentiment of curiosity and generosity towards newcomers, we adopt and de-other them across generational gaps as well as from other forms of social stereotyping.
Q3: How does g0v.tw actually help citizens participate, while social media only makes them feel as though they’ve participated?
Using collaboration tools, promoting the use of collaboration tools, making collaboration tools even easier to use... :-)
Additionally, the framework of space-and-practice-based communities alluded in the above question was further elaborated by Wuschitz S. in her 2014 dissertation (CC BY-NC-SA), which may shed some light to this question as well. Below are quotes from the dissertation, with annotations as to how they apply in the context of g0v:
In g0v’s parlance, "digging out a pit" (proposing a project), "jumping/pushing into a pit" (volunteering/recruiting), and "filling a pit" (completing a project task)" describe such agency-forming chains of actions and reactions, resulting in multiple caretakers — often with diverse skillsets — for a project.
A popular form of identification for g0v participants is the self-introduction "g0v is my career, and I’m also temping at [some company]". This highlights the stabilizing nature of a linked community space, as well as the increasing autonomy of individuals over modes of financial income.
Combining the multi-caretaker model (community ownership) with spatial autonomy (at hackathons and collaborative spaces), the instigator for a project (such as this very interview!) relates with contributions of other participants, forming a trust context among previously disconnected people (due to differences in privilege and social roles — e.g. between public officials, activists, academics, makers, and hobbyists).
An early g0v motto, "Dismantling our Government and Building It Anew", echoes this reflective attitude in civic participation, asking ourselves how each subsystem of governance may change for the better. To quote venev’s reflections on David Graeber’s book, "The Democracy Project":
Q4: The report also states that g0v.tw has found a way to combine online and offline activism. What has this meant, practically? It’s clear how the "online" collaboration manifests, but what does the community do offline?
Example 1: The 1-2-3 phone-in campaign in which people were encouraged to call their representatives and exert pressure.
Example 2: Open Political Donations project
Example 3: The inLiveTW project provides a live, bi-directional broadcasting channel for citizen journalists on the scene.
Q5: g0v.tw is clearly very collaborative. How do you determine which project to undertake?
The g0v community does not have top-down mechanisms for recommending projects, so even if there is an important cause, it might fade away if it is not supported by community members; it might also be taken over by other groups. For example, someone once suggested there should be a citizen voting observation platform. However, there was insufficient support from g0v community participants, so the related information and files that had been collected were passed on to a new community — the Observers. The Observers have yet to release their source code, so the g0v community have so far not participated in software development for the Observers.
Before undertaking a project, an individual needs to first identify a problem and see if this problem needs to be solved, which is the sole criteria of whether the project is worth it. g0v won’t refuse the launch of any project, but if no practical or actionable solutions have been proposed for the problem, naturally there won’t be many people noticing it and come on board to solve it together. g0v values collaboration, but values practical actions even more. One would attract more people if one starts solving the problem, than if one just sits and describes it.
In other words, there is no "judging" process and everyone can post the subjects they are interested in (before they have been turned into a project). They only need to present it well, or find the right people (where the bi-monthly major hackathon makes sure that message gets out), and it will automatically become a community project.
Q6: Is there work done to establish the real needs of citizens before starting work on a project?
Before the work begins on a project, there is usually someone who says "I see a problem, and I want to have something to fix it."
g0v’s famous quote said it well: "Ask not why nobody is work on something, ask yourself to be that nobody, and that nobody is perfect [to work on it]!" — The needs of nobody are the real needs!
If a project keeps going on track, this indicates the project has many collaborators. To put it differently, people who initiate an idea for a project are naturally also "citizens" who have needs for the project. This may sound a bit odd. But the truth is most people who get involved to support a project are assuredly those who consider the project’s output as being in line with their personal (citizen) needs.
Therefore, finding out the needs shared by the majority of citizens is not the primary criterion of g0v. g0v is an open community, and because of this, it can allow a project in progress to be amended, improved and agreed to by more and more participants in order to fulfill the needs of the majority of users (citizens).
來自 PDF14 會議協調人和 TechPresident.com 撰稿人索尼婭‧魯比尼：
零時政府的第一年報告指出，過去使用如臉書這種工具作為鼓勵公民參與的手段有兩個問題：1. 網上的參與並沒有轉化為離線行動或合作；2. 代溝的存在也令網路世界和線下現實難以進行合作。
問：g0v.tw 真的有努力解決這些問題嗎？如果有的話，具體是透過怎樣的行動？
兩個月一次的大型黑客松聚會，將平常線上協作的人群，直接透過實體聚會將問題聚焦且實際的做出最可行的解決方案。除了大型黑客松外，也發展出各種不同樣式的小松聚會，針對專案進行需要的討論及動手做出解決方法。此外g0v也不斷努力打破資訊藩籬，幫助許多非資訊技術專長的人跨越門檻，容易地進入專案並且開始進行協作。
雖然沒有努力，但還是解決了問題 XD
幾項具體行動中，個人認為最特別的部分是協作工具的使用。所謂的協作工具，指的是 Hackpad、GitHub、Google Drive、EtherCalc 這類可以多人即時協作的平台，特色是讓大家可以透過網路一起編輯同一份檔案。一般常見的網路工具如 Facebook、Twitter、部落格、論壇等，只是溝通管道，但並不算是真正的協作工具，因為在這些平台上人們只能像打乒乓球般一來一往的對話，但沒辦法一起堆沙堡。
為了協作，工程師們甚至自己打造工具—— hackfoldr。後來，這些原本只是為了整理黑客松的資料而寫的協作工具，在重大社會事件發生時搖身成為社會矚目的新媒體管道，則是始料未及的附加效果。
回到最前面，我說沒有努力，是因為這些事情並不是刻意去做的，其實，只要是深受開放原始碼社群的文化影響的人，自然而然就會習慣用 GitHub 之類的工具做事。而 g0v 的共同發起人及深度參與者們，多數來自台灣活躍且龐大的開放原始碼社群，因此也讓開源文化深植 g0v 的社群文化中。
另，開源社群的參與者許多是擁有實作能力與 DIY 魂的人，擁有這類特性的人，不管到哪裡都是絕佳的問題解決者，在技術領域是如此，到了社會領域仍是如此。
問：g0v.tw 用哪些不同的做法，確保社交媒體真的可以轉換為社會生產的平台，而不會遇到上面列出的問題？
我們實踐社群產出的一個關鍵，就是主動建立廣泛包容的文化。宣言中的「無黨無派」率先拒絕了可能會引起分歧的做法，避免排除任何人。
因此，g0v 被喻為一個寬敞的火車站 —— 也就是說，這是讓創意思維聚集的共享空間，讓人們能展開共同的專案旅程，也讓解決方案得以湧現。
我們的社群以協作空間為基礎，而不是推廣特定政見或制度化的技術。我們所追求的不是從 A 升級到 B，而是匯集社群內每個個體所創造的所有技藝。這些協作方式演變成為融入社群的體驗，讓所有經過的人都能參與。
這些融入社群、廣泛包容的做法，能將批評者變成貢獻者，並降低協作和行動的障礙。我們對於新加入的朋友都有著好奇和慷慨的共同情緒，因此能跨越世代的差距、納入各式人物，解除「他者化」的感受，同時也解除各種形式的社會刻板定型。
問：如果社群媒體只是讓公民覺得自己好像已經參與，那 g0v.tw 實際上如何幫助公民真正參與？
使用協作工具、推廣使用協作工具、把協作工具改造得更好用… XD
除此之外，以上問題提到以空間和實踐為基礎的社群框架，Wuschitz S. 在 2014 年的論文（CC BY-NC-SA）當中有進一步闡釋，也許可以為這個問題提供一些線索。下面是論文的摘錄，以逐段註解來描述它們如何應用於 g0v 的情況：
用 g0v 的說法，「挖坑」（提出專案項目）、「跳坑／推坑」（志願加入／招募貢獻）和「填坑」（完成專案任務）描述了形成能動的連鎖反應，使專案項目由多人一起看顧，通常各自具有不同的技能。
g0v 參與者常用的認同方式是這種自我介紹：「我的正職是 g0v，也在[某公司]打工」。這突顯了社群空間連結的穩定性質，以及個人對財政收入模式自主程度的提昇。
結合多重看顧者模型（社群共有）與空間自主（黑客松與協作空間），專案項目的策動者（例如這個採訪！）得以與其他參與者的貢獻建立關係，從而塑造可信任的環境，讓先前未曾連結的人們（由於特權和社會角色的差異 —— 例如政府官員、社會運動者、學者、自造者和業餘愛好者）得以協作。
早期 g0v 的口號「拆政府原地重建」，呼應了公民參與中的反思態度，鼓勵行動者捫心自問，如何著手將管治系統下的每個部件帶往更好的方向。引用 venev 對 David Graeber 著作《為什麼上街頭？》的反思：
問：該報告還指出，g0v.tw 已經找到把線上參與和線下行動結合起來的方法。這實際上是什麼意思？「線上合作」的呈現大家都看得很清楚，可是線下行動的時候到底在做什麼呢？
範例一 : 123 打到掛專案, (http://123.g0v.today/) 鼓勵大家實際打電話向民代施壓
範例二 : 政治獻金專案
範例三 : inLiveTW 專案, 提供『正在直播』現場的公民記者頻道
問：g0v.tw 顯然非常推崇協作。你們怎樣判斷應該哪些專案值得發起？
g0v 社群似乎沒有從上而下的專案推薦機制, 所以即使有重要的專案, 但是如果沒有社群成員支持, 還是會消失, 或由外部成員取代, 比如說, 曾經有人提案要做公民監督開票的平台, 但是由於缺乏足夠的 g0v 社群成員支持, 所以之前蒐集到的資源與文件都轉交給新的社群 - 監票者聯盟 (www.observers.tw), 且由於監票者聯盟的原始碼可能暫時不會釋出 (?) 所以目前主要的 g0v 社群成員並沒有參與該聯盟的程式開發.
我想要發起一個專案之前，要先注意到問題，若是這個問題應該要被解決。那這個專案就值得發起。g0v不會拒絕任何專案的發起，但是若對問題沒有提出實際的解決方法，那自然不會得到比較多人的關注並且跳進來一起解決。g0v推崇協作更推崇實際動手做，先動手解決問題，比單純描述分析問題來得更吸引人。
並沒有"判斷"這個過程，每個人都可以發表自己有興趣的主題（在還沒變成專案前），只要提的好或人找的好（雙月的大型黑客松正是找人的好機會），就會自然而然變成專案。
問：在專案開始工作之前，有沒有什麼方式先找出公民的真正需求有哪些？
專案開始的工作前，通常都是有個人說"I see a problem, I want to have something to fix it."
g0v的名言說的很好「不要說為什麼沒有人作這個？先承認你就是『沒有人』，『沒有人』是萬能的！」沒有人的需求就是真正的需求！
一個專案會開始運作並上軌道，則表示這個專案會有許多的協作者。反過來說，萌生專案想法的人，自然會是「公民」且對於專案具有需求。這聽起來或許有點怪，但實際上會參與協助專案的人，多數必然是認為該專案的產出是符合自身(公民)需求的。
也許找出多數公民具有共識的真正需求，在 g0v 裡並不是首要條件。 g0v 是個開放的社群，因此能讓專案在運作的過程中不斷地被修正、改進，得到更多開發者的共識，完成多數使用者(公民)的需求。