Are you looking for a way to carry out your doctoral work in good conditions and a professional experience that has meaning and impact on our democratic system? The Open Source Politics team welcomes you for a Cifre contract in contact with pioneering approaches to citizen participation.
Presentation of the company
Open Source Politics is a social economy company that offers different types of organisations (public institutions, companies, associations) digital participation platforms and support to improve their use of the platform specifically and of participation more generally.
Since the launch of the activity 5 years ago, we use only open source software, notably the Decidim platform (created in Barcelona in 2016) and regularly contribute to its development. In addition to these activities, Open Source Politics conducts and funds research projects, both fundamental and applied, aimed at informing our activity and exploring structuring topics for the future.
The Cifre contract
The Cifre contract (see here the presentation of this contract) is an interesting instrument in this context: it allows the doctoral student to be properly financed, integrated into a dynamic team and to benefit from privileged access to the field. The doctoral student will also be able to take advantage of the research networks in which Open Source Politics has been involved for the past 5 years. The team is made up of 25 people and already has one person on a Cifre contract.
Several research themes can be covered by your application for a Cifre at Open Source Politics:
In sociology, we have carried out research in organisational sociology on the consequences of the use of digital participation platforms in the local political-administrative system. For example, it could be envisaged to explore the theme of access to participation or the (non-)reduction of inequalities through participation.
In political science, research in the field of participation and its impact, the political-administrative organisation of institutions that implement participation, and the organisational transformation of companies (particularly in relation to 'corporate democracy') is welcome.
In linguistics, work has been carried out on the argumentation developed by the sponsors of the consultations and by the contributors, in order to better understand the reasons for their expression and to adapt the support provided by Open Source Politics accordingly. This work could be continued and expanded. Research projects in computational linguistics would also be welcome and could usefully complement what already exists at Open Source Politics.
In law, we are currently exploring the influence of the RGPD and new personal data management practices on consultation practices. This work could also be further developed in the framework of a PhD.
We are also open to proposals for topics that fall outside these three axes and/or disciplines! Don't hesitate to surprise us.
To facilitate the completion of the PhD, we can open up several types of field: firstly, Open Source Politics as such (data and internal work), secondly, the organisations we support (local authorities, ministries, other institutions, small and large companies, local and national associations), and thirdly, the organisations with which we have formed partnerships.
A first successful experience in research (master thesis or other);
A curiosity about digital issues;
An interest in Civic Tech and democratic renewal;
A high level of writing skills in French;
Fluency in written and spoken English and/or Spanish will be appreciated;
The ability to integrate independently into a multi-disciplinary team;
Training: All masters validated with TB mention, with a preference for research masters.
Working time: 50% on the thesis and 50% in the company, except for specific needs due to the subject
Duration: 3 years (permanent employment)
Availability: September 2021
Remuneration: legal minimum in Cifre (1,957 euros gross/month) + 50% of the transport ticket. Possibility of increase as the contract progresses
Premises: Soleillet Incubator, 14 rue Soleillet, Paris 20è
Send your application (CV, pre-project research + introduction email) to email@example.com
The current health crisis has revived the debate on civic tech (civic technologies) with the deployment of the TousAntiCovid application, putting it in ethical terms. The public discussions that the application has generated have contributed to a certain awareness of the place and role ofopen source and free software within the technologies present in our daily lives.
Recent events and social movements characterised by a certain institutional mistrust have contributed to a restructuring of the "relationship between public debate and private commitment, direct representation and new forms of democratic expression" (Marie-Laure Denis, President of the CNIL since February 2019). In this sense, civic tech has been particularly mobilised in the context of participatory approaches initiated by public institutions in order to involve citizens in the public debate.
But the use of digital tools for democratic purposes must be able to guarantee respect for transparency criteria and rights relating to personal data. This is what is at stake in the distinction between open source or free software and proprietary software. This is also the challenge of what some people call technopolitics: "the integration of (...) democratic principles at the beginning of the technical development (...) of digital tools", which translates into the inclusion of democratic principles in the platform's code.
The current situation in civic tech, marked by the transition to open source of players in the sector, has thus invited us to clarify once again the contours and challenges of the distinction between proprietary software and free and open source software.
The Open Source Politics team and its co-founders (Valentin, Virgile, Alain and Olivier) have been campaigning for more than 5 years foropen source and free software to become the rule in a French landscape that is still predominantly proprietary.
The ground gained by free and open source software on the civic tech market will be able to fuel a debate and questions that we have already started within the free software and digital commons movement.
In this respect, we are not only driven by the idea of mobilising free and open source software but also and above all by the idea of contributing to a true digital commons, i.e. a "resource produced and/or maintained collectively by a community of heterogeneous actors, and governed by rules that ensure its collective and shared character"(Labo Société Numérique).
In order to better understand this commitment, this article attempts to explain as clearly as possible the differences betweenopen source and free software and proprietary software by providing an accessible analytical framework for qualifying such projects.
Free and open source vs. proprietary software
Free and open source software
Paid user licence
Opening the source code
Yes, hence the name "open source".
No. The source code is closed to access.
Free Office, Firefox, Linux, Android, VLC etc.
Office package (Word, Excel etc.), Adobe Suite, etc.
Freedom to run (use) the program for any purpose.
Yes, everyone can.
No, only the owner can do this or by granting permission.
The freedom to study how the programme works.
The freedom to redistribute copies.
The freedom to improve the programme and to publish its improvements.
Risk of dependence on a publisher
Low if the software is mature and has a community
Strong, which can be risky if it is a small publisher
Mature software is audited and can rely on many contributors
Subject to audits but the results are not necessarily made public and the results are not replicable
Complicated by the licence
Interoperability of software with each other
Easier to implement.
Made more complex.
Pooling of investments
Guaranteed and possible on a large scale if the software has a mature ecosystem of contributors.
Yes, but limited to the capabilities and will of the publisher.
Focus on licences :
Free and open source software is governed by free or open source licences.
The well-known formula in the librarian communities generally states:
"Free as in freedom, not as in free beer
which refers to the fact that although these licences guarantee users 4 major freedoms (execute, study, modify, redistribute), this free use is conditional on having the necessary resources (time, computer knowledge, hosting) to install, configure and use the software oneself.
In the absence of such resources, it will be necessary to remunerate the work of service providers who have built up know-how and a service offer in contact with their clients. Many types of licences and models exist for free and open source software, generally divided into two broad categories:
Copyleft (the opposite of copyright) which guarantees users that the major freedoms of free software will be respected but prevents restrictions from being put in place (later closure of code, unpublished modified versions). Example: GPL (General Public Licence)
Non-copyleft , generally referred to as permissive since they allow restrictions to be placed on modified, often more complete versions, which can be distributed under a proprietary license. Example: the MIT license, and the open core
Proprietary software imposes a so-called proprietary user licence which sets out the conditions of access and use of the software. If it is a paying licence, the publisher is free to choose the terms and conditions it imposes (per user, per organisation, etc.).
Netflix, for example, operates on a monthly subscription basis that allows one or more users to use the service on different media (phone, TV, computer).
"When it's free, you're the product"
Another popular expression in the open source community is that many proprietary software products are free to use, such as Facebook, which makes its money by using its users' data to sell targeted advertising.
Focus on the opening of the code:
The question of the openness of the code is the criterion that gave its name toopensource. This source code can be compared to a recipe, which includes ingredients and procedures for making a dish: if you do not have this recipe, and do not have the list of ingredients to be used or the manufacturing process, it will be impossible to reproduce or modify this dish. In this sense, proprietary software does not give access to its source code, whereas open source software offers this access transparently and free of charge.
Focus on the issue of sustainability and scalability:
Free and open source software offers much greater guarantees of reversibility than proprietary software. As the source codes are public and generally well documented for most free software, it is easy to find another provider in case of bankruptcy or disagreement. If resources are available within the organisation, internalisation is quite possible via a transfer of skills.
This criterion is all the more important in the civic tech sector since it is mostly made up of SMEs and VSEs offering innovative solutions that are by nature risky, and since local authorities tend to commit themselves over one or more years.
The free and open source model avoids increased dependence on a single provider whose medium-term viability is not guaranteed.
Focus on security issues :
If any computer system is potentially exposed to security flaws, free and open source software that is sufficiently mature is generally audited as much as proprietary software, in addition to exposing its source in open access. This feature allows for a broader and more thorough audit as a plural ecosystem of contributors collectively ensures the highest level of security. To put it simply, more pairs of eyes (active contributors) can thus detect flaws and propose corrections according to a protocol dictated by the community.
While proprietary software benefits from occasional audits, their results are not always made public and are de facto not reproducible, as the source code is not open. Finally, the transparency of the patches made following the audit is not always guaranteed and sometimes requires another audit.
Pooling of investments :
While it is possible to pool investments in the context of the deployment of proprietary software, this pooling is richer in the context ofopen source since, once developed, the software is co-enhanced without geographical limits by a large and very diverse community of actors, who modify it according to the new needs of its users.
The need is then defined by the users and for the users, unlike proprietary software where development is dependent on the capabilities and willingness of the publisher to implement them.
The free and open source model allows not to be limited by the capacities of a publisher who would not be able to meet the challenges and needs of a very large institution. As was the case for the Conference for the Future of Europe platform, the Decidim code being open and free, the European Commission was able to use several development providers (including Open Source Politics) simultaneously in order to meet its numerous needs.
The fact that Decidim is open source has made it easier for the EU institutions to collaborate with each other, but also, crucially, with external service providers. By using a proprietary solution, the EU institutions would have been limited to the solution provider, whereas by using Decidim, they were able to "build a dedicated team just for this purpose".
While the differences between free or open source software and proprietary software may seem trivial to end-users who are not necessarily experts in these matters, they should be at the centre of the debate when it comes to software where they act to exercise their citizenship.
The field of civic tech, which is supposed to (by definition) put current technologies at the service of increasing citizen power for better democratic functioning with more open governments, has to make choices in the tools used. These tools can be common goods owned by citizens for a civic purpose defined in a democratic way, or they can be owned by private companies that would be allowed to define the civic purposes of these tools according to an economic imperative.
However, this is not a Manichean choice either. Different software models are possible with their advantages and disadvantages. In a framework that we would like to be democratic, it is important to know the nature of the tools that we are making available to citizens, particularly by opening up the code.
In the absence of any reflection on the subject, we run the risk of seeing the proliferation of business models based on the resale or commercial use of data obtained during public consultations outside the framework openly consented to or understood by the citizen at the time of their initial participation.
These questions led us to choose Decidim to support our clients. More than free and open source software , it is a true digital commons that brings together a diverse community of actors and contributors and that today powers the platforms of 200 institutions worldwide.
We will see in a future article what criteria guided us in this choice and how to analyse and compare different free and open source software projects in a very simple way.
The platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE) was launched on 19 April. Citizens' contributions posted on the platform will feed into the citizens' panels to be held in autumn 2021. To contribute, you can support, comment and submit a contribution, but also participate or even organise an event related to the Conference. This article describes how to submit an idea and reference an event on the platform step by step.
How to register on the platform?
There are several ways to register to participate on the CoFE platform:
Electronic Identification ("eID") allows registration using one's identity card. This solution is available for 17 countries. It should be noted that France is not on the list of these countries;
Authentication via social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Google;
Creating an account on the platform with an email address and a password through EU Login.
Additional information is requested when registering on the platform. You can choose to provide demographic data (gender, age, nationality, country of residence, city, socio-professional category) and whether you have already attended a public event on the European Union. This information will allow us to better process all the contributions submitted to the platform.
Finally, you must accept the platform's General Terms and Conditions of Participation to validate your registration.
What is the structure of the CoFE platform?
The platform is structured around the 10 themes of the Future of Europe Conference. Each theme is broken down into two elements: ideas and events.
To contribute to the Conference, you need to go to one of these 10 themes. They are organised in different categories. For example, the European Democracy theme contains the following categories
Each theme page is constructed as follows:
An introduction describing the political context and some resources on EU initiatives on this topic.
The list of ideas where you are invited to express your opinion by supporting, commenting and making a contribution.
Past and future events organised in the framework of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Users can activate the automatic translation of all content available on the platform. This integration of Decidim with the European Commission's translation system is one of the major innovations of the platform, allowing the creation of a space for public debate on a European scale.
In addition, it is possible not only to share the contributions on social networks but also to embed them on a website in order to gather a maximum of contributions.
How to submit a contribution?
The platform allows anyone to submit a contribution. All the citizens' contributions submitted on the platform will be analysed using digital and human data processing methods. The summaries will feed into the European citizens' panels and plenary sessions.
First of all, you have to define the language of your contribution, its title and describe your contribution in the body section.
The next step is to compare your contribution with others already submitted to avoid duplication and to encourage engagement with other contributions.
Finally, you can add an image or a document as an attachment to support your idea. This feature allows you to better argue an idea and to reinforce its attractiveness! It would be a pity to do without it...
It is possible to change your proposal within 15 minutes if no one supports it. It is therefore not possible to change a proposal once someone has given their support.
Furthermore, you cannot delete your contribution once it has been published. You have to contact the moderation team to hide a contribution by providing a justification.
How to create an event in the framework of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE)?
To organise an event, you also need to go to one of the 10 themes of the CoFE. The button to create an event is located below the interactive map and just above the list of events.
To create an event, simply enter a title, description, address, location (room name or videoconference link), start and end time and registration type. It is also possible to indicate the means of access in Venue suggestions and to arrange the event in one of the categories of the theme.
Furthermore, theplatform does not manage registrations. You must indicate in the heading Type of registration either :
that the event does not have a registration system. You must select Registration disabled.
It isalso not possible to delete an event. To remove a contribution from the platform, you must contact the moderation team to request that the event be hidden.
How to link a contribution to an event?
At the end of the event, the organiser of the event can, for example, indicate a report, the list of organisations, the number of participants and associate one or more proposals that emerged during the event. The organiser can insert these elements at the end of the event.
The organiser can close an event once the end date has passed. The button is automatically displayed for the organiser on the event page.
When the event is closed, a form is displayed. It allows you to insert the deliverables of the event such as a report, the list of speakers, the number of participants, etc.
This feature allows you to document a civil society event afterwards and to value the contributions made during the event. In the last field of the form, you can select the proposals that emerged during the event. You can also show your support for ideas submitted by other participants
How to comment on contributions?
Participants can comment on and discuss the ideas and events already on the platform.
Comments can be qualified as "For" or "Against", it is possible to reply to comments already made and to rate comments already published. You can also mention another user of the platform using @userName to invite them to join the conversation.
The Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) platform is constantly evolving. We will regularly update you on new features developed from this blog. In the meantime, you can read this blog post on the genesis and deployment of the platform.