The Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) of the Norwegian government is doing exactly that, we have been opening up our code since 2018 and are accepting pull requests across our 2000 public repositories from those who want to improve government services https://github.com/navikt this has also enabled a much more close collaboration between new and existing partners that was previously unheard of!
I think the main reason why this is not done actively in Germany, is missing people with expertise. Lots of old guys from the pre-internet era taking care of the technical systems. Unfortunately, the gov is not doing much to make at least official positions attractive to young programmers. And of course, if it's done by a contractor, they do not wat to share any code with the public.
This might be because the government is a really unattractive employer both in terms of culture and remuneration.
However I have met some truly brilliant people working for the city of Berlin. They're just limited by red tape and diffusion of responsibilities, not to mention the amount of work that needs doing.
Opening the code up to pull requests could give the city IT a free boost from motivated citizens, I think.
The largest branch of the Norwegian government, Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV), have adopted this this policy since 2018 and now we have over 2000 public repositories on https://github.com/navikt and https://github.com/nais (last one is our platform organization)
I read uninteresting as not very very useful for an external party in general. It was likely developed for an organization's fairly unique needs, is probably not very well documented, and there's no community in the sense that most genuinely useful open source projects have. Dumping a big one-off repo of code is fine but probably no one's going to put the work into seeing if this project that was never intended to be general-purpose is worth trying to adapt for something else.
Exactly this. It's like our websites and some other tools for our particular needs. We have, on rare occasion, gotten PRs from earnest supporters but they have no idea what our product needs are and we can't just merge in stuff that nobody asked for and hasn't been tested.
From what I have herd (but I was unable to find any written source at this point) the sampling only applies to the Gore-Tex Pro Shell brand. Meaning that products needs to be sent in and certified by Gore before they can be sold under that name.
I don’t have any sources to back this up, but I’ve heard that Gore Tex Pro is actually complete fabrics supplied by Gore. “Regular” Gore-Tex has the face and backing layers added by the manufacturer, where Gore Tex Pro comes with the face and backing layers. The Pro fabrics also require being sewn in a “Gore certified” factory. A lot of this is just rumours and hearsay picked up from living in a resort town, lots of discussions about Gore Tex!
The sampling for "regular" Gore-TEX (read: layers added by manufacturer) makes sense from a product standpoint.
If your selling point is waterproofness, and waterproofness can be destroyed by bad assembly... assembly is directly linked to your perceived product value.
For me it is how one person can suddenly own an entire social network and dictate the rules as he likes or dislikes. Mastodon it self is more open, the server you choose to sign up to might have content policies in place.
Wait, that's literally Zuckerberg? How was it OK when a Saudi Prince bought into Twitter to make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't be hit by an Arab Spring[1]?
I don't really like Musk, but is every conversation and topic these days just plain hysteria?
Yeah, it is not about a whole social network being controlled by a single person. It is about a whole social network being controlled by a single person you disagree with.
You don't have to disagree with Elon as a person or politically to feel that an open speech platform controlled by one person who is known to micromanage everyone around him is bad.
The tweets about Pelosi should that he is absolutely open to using his power as a prominent figure to control the narrative long outside his area of expertise
Tweeting isn't controlling any narrative. If you ban one side and not the other, and suppress stories you don't like, that's more along the lines you're talking.
But all the social networks are owned by a few individuals. Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few (with real control), and they already dictated the rules based on their own likes/dislikes... that's what started this whole thing in the first place.
If I could choulse twitter would be a protocol, but to me the worst case is being owned by an anonymous bureaucracy working exclusively to optimize the platform for add revenue, that changes the 'rules' on the fashions of US local politics. Anything else is an improvement.
I’m old enough to remember when that was an excuse people used for Twitter. Funny, seems like months ago. Now, it’s a private company but the arguments are all different.
