Unfortunately, we see the policy as an end goal. Therefore, many humanitarian organisations are graveyards of wonderful policies, never implemented.
From the Blog on data governance
Seth wrote about chatoyancy recently. I don’t know what opposite sophisticated word to chatoyancy is, but we experience it often
Many of you will be familiar with the governance stack. We need to figure out how people can be involved in the decision making.
There are many ways in which communities are involved in decision making. There isn’t ‘one’ way to do it as each community is different.
And then someone asks a question that stops us all. “How do we explain consent and data sharing to an elderly person struggling with dementia?”
Data governance can feel complex. One way to think about collective data governance is to think in tiers – governance, technical, legal, and data.
The process of checking for duplicates is relatively easy. Does that frog match this frog. Yes? you get the pair. No? next person’s turn.
It’s easy to tweak on the edges because tweaking the core is too hard. Are we just scared that we will be rejected, laughed at, fail or all three?
To find new ideas, we need more experiments and tests, not less. For every experiment that is repeatable, there are hundreds that don’t work.