This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about cookies.
Skip to main content
Metadecidim's official logo
  • English Triar la llengua Elegir el idioma Choose language
    • Català
    • Castellano
Sign Up Sign In
  • Home
  • Processes
  • Assemblies
  • Initiatives
  • Consultations
  • Conferences
  • Help

Decidim.GOV: Democratic Governance for an open community

#decidimgov Internal organization, democracy and decision making

Phase 8 of 8
Accountability 2019-02-17 - 2019-02-28
Process phases
  • The process
  • Meetings
  • Proposals
  • Statutes proposal
  • Internal regulations proposal
  • Statutes approval
  • Coordination Committee Approval
  • News
More
  • Coordination Committee Approval
  • News
This is a collaborative draft for a proposal. This means that you can help their authors to shape the proposal using the comment section below or improve it directly by requesting access to edit it. Once the authors grant you access, you'll be able to make changes to this draft.
chevron-left Back

[EN] Transparency by default rule for document sharing / [ES] Regla de transparencia por defecto para documentos compartidos

08/01/2019 14:10  
Published

[EN] Rather than specifying the documents that need to be open (which might be an endless task) the association should adopt a transparency by default rule for document sharing. Meaning any document that's not shared should be backed by a good reason not to open it to the public.

[ES] En lugar de especificar una lista de documentos (cuentas, estatutos, etc.) que tiene que ser transparentes (una tarea que es imposible de completar), la organización debería de adoptar una regla de "transparencia por defecto". Deberá de justificarse la existencia de cualquier documento que no sea compartido/publicado.

  • Filter results for category: 6. Transparency and accountability6. Transparency and accountability
final proposal
This draft is finished. Check out the final proposal
published proposal
see version history for this proposal
  • people 3
  • pencil 3
  • comment-square 2
Reference: MDC-COLL-2018-12-29

Share:

link-intact Share link

Share link:

Report inappropriate content

Is this content inappropriate?

Reason

2 comments

Order by:
  • Older
    • Best rated
    • Recent
    • Older
    • Most discussed
Conversation with Pau Parals
Avatar: Pau Parals Pau Parals verified-badge
24/12/2018 11:23
  • Get link Get link

Which organitzational space will decide whether it is justified or not? Maybe, as a general rule we can define some criteria that define wheter it should be public or not. I think that if we establish a criterion, the possible evaluation would be more objective.

Avatar: Xabier Xabier verified-badge
08/01/2019 12:35
  • Get link Get link

You are right @paarals, but this solution is here just to avoid and endless list of possible justifications. The rule now is "everything has to be open, if not, however is in charge of the document has to explain why". I understand that the only difficulty here is "who must accept the explanation"? As a rule of thumb I suggest it is the organ above and the whole community otherwise.

Add your comment

Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.

Loading comments ...

  • Terms and conditions of use
  • About the community
  • Download Open Data files
  • Metadecidim at Twitter Twitter
  • Metadecidim at Instagram Instagram
  • Metadecidim at YouTube YouTube
  • Metadecidim at GitHub GitHub
Creative Commons License Website made with free software.
Decidim Logo

Confirm

OK Cancel

Please sign in

decidim Sign in with Decidim
Or

Sign up

Forgot your password?