Why is there no government-supported international public service wiki or online chat?

As usual, I was impressed by this new blog post from GDS: From Whitechapel to the White House. They describe how representatives from that organisation were invited by the Office of Management and Budget, part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, to meet with a group of global digital leaders, including representatives from the USA, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Canada, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Azerbaijan, and Singapore.

I’m very pleased to hear this kind of thing is ongoing after the ending of GDS International some time ago (like a lot of things, there was no “this is ending” blog so we have to assume radio silence means it’s gone).

As a quick aside, I was mildly disappointed that the post says, “We challenged ourselves to test previous assumptions and technical decisions about how digital services needed to work, thinking critically about which aspects might need to change versus what should remain the same,” choosing to keep a focus on “digital services” as a separate thing, rather than focusing on the best form of service delivery, of which digital is just one channel. I’m very much hoping that, in 2025, we’ll stop viewing “digital services” as being unique and different.

The blog post mentions four key areas of focus that the participants agree on:

• Trust. This is an area that included countering both deliberate and accidental misinformation, having a strong and consistent brand, using a variety of channels appropriately and demonstrating that services are based on user needs.
• Connected data. This covered data quality and privacy and the appropriate ability for one government organisation to access data held by another. Interestingly, here the post says, “Specifically how GOV.UK One Login could enable a faster, more personalised and more proactive experience of government in the near future,” which, to me, certainly feels like a reference to potentially expanding One Login into a “government account”, which I’ve long felt would be a good idea.
• Generative AI. This covered things like the accuracy and scaling of the use of AI in both public-facing citizen services and behind-the-scenes algorithmic decision making. It highlighted the ongoing ethical discussions in this area and the success of things like the Bletchley Declaration.
• Alternative funding models. This addresses the very longstanding and ongoing struggle to fund some services, particularly around areas of digital delivery, with ongoing teams providing long-term iterative user focused improvements, rather than treating them as projects that can be “completed”.

The post concludes by saying that such international meetings can be a highly productive way of sharing good practice and common concerns — something I strongly agree with. However, it doesn’t mention any planned future meetings or any other mechanisms for the participants to continue the discussions or enable other government or government-adjacent organisations to become involved.

I’ve long been an advocate of creating and supporting communities of practice and interest both inside government (e.g. between departments and also levels of government, such as central and local) and between governments. Unfortunately, in the UK, various governments, both Labour and Conservative, as well as senior public servants seem to be indecisive in their opinion of the value of such communities. At least, that apparent situation is reflected in the levels of support for people inside the civil service attempting to foster such networks. Some flourish, notably ones such as the Policy Profession, Policy Lab and the Service Design Community. However, for several years now, there have been periods where a number of professional community managers have been hired by various government organisations, including GDS, only to find their roles removed and them made redundant 2–3 years after the role was created. It does seem that community support is one of the first things to go when budgets are tightened.

This is also reflected in the, as far as I know, ongoing ambiguous state of community supporting tools, such as the highly popular and extremely successful cross-gov Slack instance. Instead of senior leaders embracing this and encouraging both community members and civil servants in general to participate, it remains something that is more akin to don’t-ask-don’t-tell (at least, that is my personal understanding, as I no longer have access since leaving the civil service).

In an ideal world, such roles and tools would be central to how government would operate, alongside a scaling-up of the oft-quoted mantra of “making things open makes things better” by strongly encouraging general-public-level sharing of show-and-tells and other team-level reporting, as a way to create further trust with the public.

But, not unusually for me, I’ve wandered off topic. Back to the international sphere.

I have great respect for both private sector organisations such as Public Digital and Apolitical, to name just two that specialise in the digital space, who create and foster deep networks of public servants across international boundaries. It has consistently puzzled me why our government and civil service don’t do the same thing.

Imagine a flagship international online forum for politicians and public servants to discuss evidence-based policy and the details of successful implementations from digital services to citizen-led capabilities-focused delivery. Imagine it not being an area exclusive to, or led / overseen by, senior or middle management but instead one broadly managed by volunteer frontline practitioners guided by professional community managers. Imagine it being connected to a public wiki where fact-checked evidence for different policy positions could be collected.

Now imagine it being a flagship project led by a small group of leading 21st century nations, such as those mentioned in this post, using it as a way to demonstrate their forward thinking. Think of it as a way to highlight those governments’ commitment and brand, both at home and abroad.

I’m not going to hold my breath but, for a very long time now, this has seemed to me to be a baffling omission that, for a very small amount of money, could improve both policy and delivery development, as well as the international status of the leading participants.

Instead, it’s looking like we’re happy for other countries to be the first-movers in this space and that’s a shame.