Australian Internet Governance Forum 2016

Estimated reading time:

The Australian Internet Governance Forum – #auigf – was held at the Park Hyatt, Melbourne, October 11th-12th, 2016. This was the first time I’d had an opportunity to attend the #auigf, and I wasn’t sure what to expect. Internet users are a diverse cohort – and auDA – regulator for the .au namespace, and the body which auspices #auigf classifies members into supply class – those providing internet services – and demand class – those consuming services.

My first impression was one of surprise. The #auigf theme for the forum was ‘a focus on a competitive digital future for Australia’  – and given the significant influence that digital technology, policy and communities will play in an era of digital disruption, I couldn’t help but wonder why more key players weren’t passionate about driving the future of the internet in Australia.

 

Stuart Benjamin, Chairman of auDA

The regulator has been the subject of criticism in recent years, particularly around its engagement and consultation practices, and long-serving CEO Chris Disspain left the organisation in March, being replaced by former Liberal state parliamentarian, Cameron Boardman. This #auigf was therefore a symbolic opportunity for Boardman to signal to stakeholders the organisation’s new focus.  auDA chairman Stuart Benjamin in his opening address tackled this head on, outlining a renewed focus on stakeholder engagement, particularly in the area of building international partnerships, and relatedly, cybersecurity. He framed this strategic shift as auDA ‘growing up’ – moving from adolescence into maturity. In particular he flagged a shift from reactive approaches to domain administration, to more proactive approaches, underpinned by stronger relationships, renewed processes and systems and more innovative thinking. Linking board performance as critical to the success of the organisation, he introduced new Board Directors, Michaella Richards and Dr Leonie Walsh. Continuing the theme of advancing women in the organisation, Benjamin congratulated lawyer Rachael Falk on her appointment as Director of Technology, Security and Strategy, a newly created role tasked with catalysing auDA’s new directions. Acknowleding that auDA needs to win back the trust of the community it serves, Benjamin emphasised higher expectations of auDA – both externally from stakeholders and driven internally by the organisation itself, announcing he will be “seeking a lot more”.

Prof Paul Cornish, former Professor of International Security at Chatham House and independent consultant and author

Prof Cornish outlined how auDA is heading towards a more international posture and developing a number of partnerships. His main argument was that the future of the internet – and the digital economy – needs to be secured. Cybersecurity needs to evolve as the internet does, using a capability maturity model.

Cybersecurity Plenary – Chaired by Rachael Falk, with Alistair MacGibbon, Laura Bell, Prof Chris Leckie, Simon Raik-Allen, Craig McDonald

Rachael Falk opened by drawing attention to the National Cyber Security Strategy, urging attendees to become familiar with it. The discussion quickly turned to why there wasn’t more focus on cyber security, and Prof Cornish had a very incisive response – “interest follows money”. Money is starting to flow to cyber security, and interest will follow. Prof Leckie outlined challenges getting cyber security research from the lab into mainstream commercialisation. Researchers are challenged by the rate of change – for example, hypothetical attacks are quickly becoming reality. Academia is also confronted by getting business and industry to recognise the threat that cyber security presents. The other challenge is getting boards to recognise that cyber security is many different problems – which need many solutions. This is overwhelming for small businesses who “just want it to work”.

One of the best insights on the plenary came from Laura Bell – @lady_nerd on Twitter – who recounted the example of big corporations acquiring smaller firms – who may have a very different security posture, thus putting the larger corporation at risk.

The plenary used the term “happy clickers” to denote people who click on phishing emails without critically assessing their validity. This was the first time I’d heard that term, but it captures the psychological state accurately. Interesting, there was discussion around how people who are disengaged in their roles being more likely to be ‘happy clickers’ – because the phishing email represents a welcome distraction – another reason to ensure positive employee engagement.

Another very interesting discussion thread in this plenary was the paradox of cyberware – people personal information freely with services like Google and Facebook, but resent government intrusion as seen recently with the census. This may come down to the compulsion element – it’s about giving information freely versus being compelled to disclose. There’s an element here for government design of online services – another job for the DTO! – around information design. Imagine a census that was voluntary rather than mandatory, but got people to participate because of the social good involved. I think it would be a much more positive process.

This led into a discussion around corporate use of data – and whether consumers understand the value of their own data – essentially we’re trading our data for ‘free products’. For many online services we have to consent to data disclosure to get access to the service, but in the background there’s data matching going on – there’s a ‘creep factor’. The link was drawn from ‘creep factor’ behaviour to band value – trust and transparency are linked to the public’s view of the brand.

Key takeaway: The pub test for data use – “is it creepy?” If so, don’t do it.

This plenary also covered the practice of ‘hacking back‘ – where individuals or businesses use information security counter-measures to retaliate. The consensus in the room is that this is a poor response, largely because identifying the aggressor is so difficult. The group also highlighted that Australia has an offensive cyber capability – again linking cyber security to an international, nation-state based context. The lack of a standard response protocol for dealing with hacking incidents was also covered – many businesses are afraid of disclosing and are reluctant to do so, but having a standard response protocol would allow businesses to respond in a mature way.

In summary, cyber security is hard – there’s lots of layers and issues to consider, there’s a lack of general awareness in business and industry, the field is rapidly changing and no defined response protocols for business to use.

Women in STEM Plenary – Dr Rowan Brookes, Renee Noble, Dr Catherine Lang, Dr Leonie Walsh, Luan Heimlich

Dr Brookes introduced the plenary with an apology for not being able to include more women of colour and from the LBGQTI spectrum, particularly on Ada Lovelace Day. The key themes of needing to address systemic issues and create a pipeline for women in STEM were prevalent throughout the conversation.

What struck me first up with this plenary was the range of initiatives, groups and organisations that are working to further women in STEM, and I wondered whether this fragmentation is actually a disservice – so many voices have less volume.

Key takeaway: Are there too many women in STEM groups that are too fragmented? Do we need an Australia ecosystem map of women / females in STEM / ICT

Luan Heimlich opened the plenary by asking the audience who young girls look up to; met with responses of pop stars, sports celebrities and models. Not a science or technology role model in sight! She followed up by questioning whether these role models are going to solve the problems of tomorrow – digital disruption, climate change and public health, and let the audience ponder on the gap.

Dr Leonie Walsh covered efforts to help encourage early to mid career researchers to further their careers, noting that it’s difficult for women to step out of their careers to have a family – as this often puts them several years behind. She also noted that employers are looking for candidates with more well rounded skills, and her program provides exposure to work environments. Dr Catherine Lang highlighted the influence of pre-service teachers in promoting STEM. Another key thread in this discussion was that professions are socially constructed, and that this can be changed – but it’s an uphill battle because ICT careers are not even on the radar as a career choice for young women.

While programs are having localised success, there are still major gaps at a systemic level, and better consistency and co-ordination is required at a national level.

Behavioural insights panel – Kirstan Corban, Dr Alex Gyani, Christian Stenta, Helen Sharpley

This panel was a series of vignettes centred around how behavioural insights had led to social change. The standout piece was by Alex Gyani, who ran the audience through examples of where minor changes had a major impact – using a framework of

  • Easy – interventions should be easy for people, but this is hard to do
  • Attractive – the intervention has to be attractive for people
  • Timely – try something, see if it works – don’t be caught in analysis paralysis
  • Social – social norms are a powerful influencer for change

A key concept from Gyani’s talk was the concept of cognitive budget – we have so many choices to make every day we need to think critically about choice architecture.

The other three speakers, from health and government, highlighted case studies that showcased design thinking, co-design, and approaches to difficult problems.

Key takeaway – minor changes can make a big impact

Internet of Things Plenary – Pablo Hinojosa, Matthew Pryor, Phil Goebel, Lorraine Tighy, Dr Kate Auty

Hinojosa opened proceedings by outlining how the internet has reached 3.5 billion users – half of this volume in Asia – and there are double the number of internet connected devices than people. We’re on the cusp of a revolution.

Matthew Pryor outlined the use of IOT in agriculture and agribusiness, and emphasised how IoT helps with decision making. He highlighted how it’s hard to scale infrastructure in regional and rural areas – and questioned whether we should be investing in networks that connect people or devices or both? He gave the example that as soon as farmers leave the farmhouse, they have no internet – they need to go back to the farmhouse to make better decisions, and this reduces their ability to deliver economic benefit. We need to consider the principle of universal access as we build out infrastructure.

Phil Goebel used the Disneyland Magic Band example to highlight how IoT has taken a purely physical experience and used connectivity to enhance that – leading to “augmented experience”. For example, the band allows Disney to know where the longest queues are, how the park is being used, what facilities are important for which demographics – very granular marketing data. He outlined that there are multiple users of the data – different actors in the ecosystem – administration, marketers and the users themselves – using the data gathered by wearables for different purposes. He flagged the issue that there are no guidelines around how the data is being used – for instance is it being sold on – we need to consider transparency.

Lorraine Tighe is the Smart City and Innovation Manager at City of Melbourne, and outlined how vendors she mets present the IoT as a silver bullet. She outlined the use cases for IoT in smart cities, including parking sensors – to reduce traffic that is searching for a car park – leading to traffic efficiencies. She positioned local government at the coalface of the community, and bringing the community along on the journey – using the City Lab as a vehicle to test and prototype solutions. As part of this, the City of Melbourne made the decision to go open by default with their data, encouraging smart people to co-create with the City.

 

Dr Kate Auty spoke on projects like RedMap and Atlas of Living Australia providing citizen scientists with tools to protect biodiversity. She related how ‘super science’ projects like AURIN and NECTAR are important for understanding how cities work.

Scott Seely had the quote of the panel though;

 

Conclusions

In summary, the #auigf reflected many of the contemporary themes of digital society. Digital disruption and digital society are changing at a rapid pace, and we have a dearth of tools, approaches, standards and response protocols to handle them. We need to start by clearly defining the problems we’re trying to solve, and approach solving them with new types of problem solving approaches, such as design thinking, co-creation and open data. Many of the problems we’re trying to solve require national and international co-operation to build ecosystems, standards and agreed approaches – and the #auigf is a good starting point.

Save

State of my toolchain 2016

Estimated reading time:

In July, I transitioned from a 16-year career in digital and IT with a regional university to setting up my own digital consultancy. This meant that I no longer had a Managed Operating Environment (MoE) to rely on, and instead had to build my own toolchain. Both to document this toolchain, and to provide a snapshot to compare to in the future, this post articulates the equipment, software and utilities I use, from hardware up the stack.

Hardware

I have three main devices;

  • Asus N76 17.3″ laptop – not really a portable device, but a beast of a work machine. I’ve had this since January 2013, and it hasn’t let me down yet. It has 16GB of RAM, 4 dual core Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz CPUs, so 8 cores in total, and it basically needs its own power station to run. This machine is a joy to own. It speeds through GIMP and video processing operations, and has plenty of grunt to do some of data visualisation (Processing) work that I do. The NVIDIA graphics are beautiful. The only upgrade in this baby’s near term future is to swap out the spinning rust HDD (x2) with some solid state goodness.
  • Asus Trio Transformer TX201LA – a portal device, useful for taking on trains and to meetings. I’ve had this for around 18 months now, and while it’s a solid little portable device, it does have some downsides. This is a dual operating system device – the screen, which is a touchscreen, and detaches, runs stock Android (which hasn’t had an update since 4.2.2 – disappointing), while I’ve got the base configured via Grub to dual boot Win10 and Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Switching between the mobile OS and desktop OS is generally seamless, but I’ve had some glitches switching between Ubuntu and Android – in ASUS’ defence, they did tell me that Linux wasn’t supported on this device, and of course you all knew what my response that was, didn’t you? Challenge: accepted. The hardware on this device is a little less grunty than I’d like – 4GB RAM and Intel® Core™ i7-4500U processor. It just isn’t enough RAM, and I have to pretty much limit myself to running 3-4 apps at a time, and less than 10 Firefox tabs. But, that said, I *do* like the convenience of having the Android device as well – and the screen is a joy to work with. One little niggle is that VGA / HDMI out are via mini display port – and only a VGA adaptor was provided in the box. I’ll have to get a mini display port to HDMI adapter at some stage, as the world embraces digital video out. For the meantime, I’ll have to party like it’s 1999 with VGA.
  • LG Nexus 5X – my mobile phone. Purchased in January 2016, it’s running stock Android Marshmallow, and I’ve been super happy with how fast Android OTA updates ship to this device. For non-RAM-intensive operations it’s pretty snappy, and the quality of the camera is fantastic. The battery life is pretty good compared to my old Nexus 4, and I can usually go a full day on a charge, if I’m not Ingressing. This device has some pretty major downsides though. The USB-C charging cable is frustrating, given everything else I own charges on micro USB, so I’ve had to shell out for new cables. The RAM on this device just isn’t enough for its processor, and I’m constantly experiencing lag on operations, making for a frustrating user experience. The camera is buggy as hell, and there’s more than once I’ve taken a great shot, only to find it hasn’t been saved. I’ll be looking for a different model next time, but I can’t justify replacing this at the moment – it’s only around 8 months old.

My hardware overview wouldn’t be complete without these other useful peripherals:

Wearables

The two key wearables I have are the Pebble Time and Fitbit. As Pebble Time’s GPS and fitness tracking capabilities increase, I’m expecting to be able to decom my Fitbit. I can’t imagine living without the Pebble now – it’s a great wearable device. The battery life is pretty good – 3-4 days, and the charging connector is robust – unlike my poor experiences with the Fitbit – both with the device battery itself degrading over time, and having been through 5-6 chargers in 3 years. I’ve Kickstarted the Pebble Core, and can’t wait to see where this product line goes next.

Software

At the operating system level, both my laptops dual boot both Windows 10 and Ubuntu LTS 16.04, with my preference to be to use Ubuntu if possible. This generally works well, but there are some document types that I can’t access readily on Ubuntu – such as Microsoft Project. Luckily, most of the work I do these days is web-based. I still need Windows for gaming, because not all the titles I play are delivered via Steam – with the key one being The Secret World. Total addict 🙂

Office productivity

  • LibreOffice – my office suite of choice is LibreOffice. OpenOffice is pretty much dead, and the key driver of that is being umbrella’d by Oracle. Open source communities don’t want to be owned by large corporates who purchase things, like, oh I don’t know, MySQL, to simply gain market share rather than ascribing to the open source ethos.
  • Firefox – my browser of choice. Yes, I know it’s slower. Yes, I know it’s a memory hog. But it’s Firefox for me. I really like the Sync feature, meaning that the plugins and addons that I have on one installation automatically download on another – very useful when you’re running essentially four machines. My favourite and most used extensions would have to be LeetKey, Awesome Screenshot, Zotero, ColorZilla and of course Web Developer tools.
  • Thunderbird – I run Thunderbird with a bunch of extensions like Enigmail, Lightning (with a Google Calendar integration for scheduling) and Send Later – so that if I write a bunch of emails at 2am in the morning, they actually send at a more humane hour.
  • Zotero – I used Zotero, and its LibreOffice plugin for referencing. It’s beautiful. And open source.
  • Slack – Slack is the new killer app. I use it everywhere, on all the things. The integrations it has are so incredibly useful. In particular, I use an integration called Tomato Bot for Pomodoro-style productivity.
  • Xero – Yes, I have a paid account to Xero for accounting and bookkeeping. It’s lovely and simple.
  • Trello – For all the project management goodness. I got some free months of Trello Gold, and I’ve let it lapse, but will probably buy it again. It’s $USD 5 per month and has great integration with Slack. Again, if there were an open source alternative I’d give that a go, but, well, there just isn’t.
  • GitHub and Git – If your office is about digital and technology, then GitHub is an office productivity tool! I use Git from the command line, because it’s just easier than running another application on top of everything else.

Social media and radio

  • Hootsuite – Yes, I have a paid account to Hootsuite. There just isn’t a comparable open source alternative on the market yet. It has some limitations – such as lack of strong integration with newer social media platforms such as Instagram and SnapChat, but you can’t go past it for managing multiple Facebook pages or Twitter accounts at once.
  • Pandora – I stream with Pandora, but I really, really, really miss Rdio.

Quantified self

Over the years, I’ve found a lot of value in running a few quantified self applications to get a better idea of how I’m spending my time – after all, making a problem visible is the first step toward a solution.

  • RescueTime – the visualisations are beautiful, and it runs on every device I have, including Linux. It provides great insights, and makes really clear when I’ve been slacking off and not doing enough productive work. One of the features that I appreciate most is to be able to set your own categorisations. For examples, Ingress in my RescueTime is categorised as neutral – yes it’s a game, but I only play it when I’m walking – so that’s something I’m aiming to do more of.
  • BeeMindr – this nifty little app puts a sting in the tail of goals – and charges you money if you don’t stick with strong habits. I’ve found it’s started to help change my behaviour and build some better habits, such as more sleep and more steps. It has a huge range of integrations with other tools such as RescueTime and Fitbit.

Coding, data visualisation and other nerdery

  • Atom Editor – this is my editor of choice, again because it works on both Windows and Linux. The only downside is that plugins – I run many – have to be individually installed. If Atom had something like Firefox Sync, it would be a killer product. It’s so much lighter than Eclipse and other Java-based editors I’ve used in the past.
  • D3.js – this is my go to Javascript visualisation library. V4 has some pitfalls – namely syntax changes since v3, but it’s still a beautiful visualisation library.
  • Processing – I’ve used Processing a little bit, but I’m frustrated that it’s Java-based. Processing.js is a library that attempts to replicate the Java-based Processing, but the functionality is not yet fully equivalent – particularly for file manipulation operations. The concept behind Processing – data visualisation for designers, not programmers – is sound, but I feel that they’ve made an architectural faux pas by not going Javascript right from the start. I haven’t really gotten in to R or Python yet, but I can see that on the horizon.

Graphics, typography and design

  • Scribus – in the past year I’ve had to do quite a few posters, thank you certificates and so on – and Scribus has been my go to tool. The user interface is a little awkward in places, but it provides around 60% of the functionality of desktop publishing tools like QuarkXPress and InDesign – for free.
  • InkScape and GIMP – my go to tools for vector and raster work respectively. Although, I have started to experiment a little with Krita lately. One of the things I’ve found a little frustrating with both InkScape and GIMP is the limited range of palettes that they ship with, so I started writing some of my own.
  • Typecatcher – for loading Google fonts on to Linux.

Next steps

Thin client computing seems to be taking off in a big way – virtualised desktops are all the rage at the moment, but I don’t think they would work for me, primarily because I tend to work in low bandwidth situations. My home internet is 4-5Mbps, and my 4G dongle gets about the same, but is pre-paid, so data is expensive. For now, I’ll have to manage my own desktop environment!

What do you think? Are these choices reasonable? Are there components in the stack that should be replaced? Appreciate your feedback 😀

We’ve reached Peak Hackathon and this is what we need to do about it

Estimated reading time:

Over recent years, the term ‘hackathon‘ has entered mainstream parlance. There are many nuances in just what a hackathon is – very eloquently articulated by Jack Skinner. What I’d like to unpack today however is the growing number of hackathons in the Australian technical and entrepreneurial scene – and whether we’ve reached a point where there are now so many that they’ve become ineffective. This saturation point is a condition I’ll term ‘peak hackathon‘.

What hackathons are there?

Over the past two months alone around the city of Melbourne, Australia, there are a plethora of hackathon events;

  • GovHack – a national open data hackathon where participants leverage open data from federal, state and local government authorities to build new tools for citizens (free to attend)
  • Girl Geek Academies #SheHacks – a hackathon for women only where a number of female mentors are present, aimed at providing connections and a space for women to test new business ideas ($AUD 100 to attend)
  • #Moonhack by Code Club Australia – aimed at children aged 9-11, this hackathon is a world record attempt to get as many children as possible hacking at once (free to participate).
  • Unihack – run by Monash University’s student IT society, this hackathon is aimed at university students only and has fairly open-ended goals – with a working product being the overall goal (free to attend).
  • Random Hacks of Kindness Melbourne (#RHoK) – positioned as a social hackathon, RHOK focuses on developments that provide social outcomes (free to attend).

Why are we reaching ‘peak hackathon’?

The rise in the volume of hackathons is completely understandable. While the empirical evidence is thin – largely because hackathons are a very recent phenomena, the case studies that have emerged are generally positive – hackathons are great ways to generate ideation, to facilitate social connections and to grow innovative products and services (see references below).

Hackathons are also great was to build social capital and technical communities – for instance around a particular language, a geography or a product.

So, what’s the problem?

As hackathons gain additional traction and recognition as hotbeds of innovation, the sheer volume of hackathons being run is now becoming the problem itself.

Why? It comes down to dollars and people.

Hackathons have a number of expenses. Firstly, you need a venue to house the hackathon. Sometimes this will be donated in-kind or at a discount, but sometimes not. Then, you have to feed your hackers – well, you don’t have to, but it’s considered de rigueur to do so. Often, the venue will have a contractual obligation in place to use a particular catering company, so even if the hackathon is able to obtain the venue for a low price point, the provision of catering is often much more expensive. Next, you will need stationery, which for a smaller hackathon is often a neglible cost, but can run to hundreds of dollars for larger events. Factor in marketing and media coverage (such as promoted posts or tweets), prizes for hacks and suddenly the cost of running your hackathon can run to thousands of dollars.

Sponsorship, up until recently, has generally been relatively easy to obtain. Organisations want to align themselves with groups that represent innovation and creativity, and especially where the organisation receives additional benefits, such as the ability to scout for talent or first pick of the minimum viable products delivered at a hackathon. However, as the number of hackathons in the market increase, sponsorship is becoming more difficult to obtain in some cases. Alternatively, the amount of money that organisations are willing to direct to hackathons is diluted – meaning that a hackathon may need to deal with twice the number of sponsors – who are contributing reduced amounts of capital – thus placing an administrative overhead on the hackathon organisers – who are generally volunteers. Building sponsor relationships takes time and effort – that often needs to be sustained over several years.

An alternative to this is to charge attendees – such as #SheHacks charging $AUD 100 per participant. However, this choice – as financially necessary as it may be – places additional barriers to entry in place for participants. For instance, some potential participants may need childcare to attend (something that GovHack Melbourne provides for free), and others may need to give up paid work to attend. So, competing for sponsorship indirectly means more barriers to participation – something that all hackathons want to avoid.

The plethora of hackathons sprouting up also means that competition now exists not only for sponsor patronage, but for developer / creative / entrepreneurial attendees. A hackathon is a significant time commitment – often two-three days over a weekend – competing with leisure time, family time – or for the more introverted attendees – ‘alone’ time.  Hackathons are intense. They require significant investment of cognitive effort, long hours – and although fun, exciting and exhilarating – often leave participants tired or drained. There is a limit to how many of them attendees can actually do without feeling drained our burned out – again something all hackathons wish to avoid.

Lastly, but certainly not leastly, the other resource that becomes contended when we reach peak hackathon is volunteer time. Most hackathons – apart from corporate hack days – where the organisation has paid members of staff organise the hackathon – are run on volunteer time and effort. The number of volunteers we have in Australia has actually increased over the last five years, but the number of hours they are volunteering on average has significantly reduced. While it’s unknown whether this statistic extrapolates to hackathons and the technical community, it stands to reason that if there are more hackathons, requiring more volunteer effort, and that the pool of volunteer time is finite, sooner or later hackathons are going to contend for the same volunteers. This in turn leads to volunteer burn out – which reduces the overall capital of the community.

So, what can we do to collectively address the situation?

  • Dates – finding dates are hard. We have to schedule around university holidays (as students won’t attend if they’ve gone home for term break), major events (such as sporting events), and simply time of the year (if it’s 40 degrees outside, you might be at the beach). Trying to then co-ordinate around multiple other hackathons may then appear to be a bridge too hard to cross, particularly if the hackathon is national or international in scale.
  • Hackathon summit – another option is for the leaders of various hackathons to stay in regular and constant contact, and identify the areas where they should, and should not be collaborating. This might take the form of co-ordinating around which sponsors will be approached, or co-ordinating around dates, or co-ordinating around shared resources – for instance information on how to source childcare. Great collaboration will mean less competition.
  • Volunteer pipeline – the most effective volunteers are those who have significant experience and connections throughout the hackathon community. The downside of course is that if people are effective in a volunteer capacity they are often ‘rewarded’ with additional work. Collectively we can work together to identify, nurture and grow the volunteer base. Of course, this nurturing itself is an additional task.
  • Less money for prizes, more money for participation – with significant funds from hackathons going to prize money, it may make more sense to divert funds to participation activities – bursaries, child care, travel and accommodation grants – from prize money. Whether this would deter those hackers who come to hackathons purely for the money on offer is unknown – but it may serve to increase participation from under-represented cohorts.

What do you think? Are there other actions we could be taking as hackathon organisers to address peak hackathon?

 

Full disclosure: I’m the site lead for GovHack Geelong, a GovHack official event, and sit on the board of Linux Australia, an incorporated association which auspices GovHack as well as many other technical events such as Pycon-AU and linux.conf.au.

References

  • Decker, A., Eiselt, K., & Voll, K. (2015). Understanding and improving the culture of hackathons: Think global hack local. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015. 32614 2015. IEEE (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
  • Isaac-Menard, R. (2016). Hack the library Organizing Aldelphi University Libraries’ first hackathon. College & Research Libraries News, 77(4), 180–183.
  • Jetzek, T. (2016). ElEmEnts of a succEssful Big Data HackatHon in a smart city contExt. Geoforum Perspektiv, 14(25).
  • Leclair, P., & a Catalyst, O. D. I. (2015). Hackathons: A Jump Start for Innovation. Public Manager, 44(1), 12.
  • Lewis, B. A., Parker, J., Cheng, L. W., & Resnick, M. (2015). UX Day Design Challenge Hackathon to Apply Rapid Design Ideation to a Practical User Experience Challenge. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, pp. 304–306). SAGE Publications.
  • Rice, J. (2015). Hackathon implementation for industry and academia. UTICA COLLEGE
GovHack 2015 group photo, credit: Mo Xiao Xiang
GovHack 2015 group photo, credit: Mo Xiao Xiang