PlanetRussell.net

Over on Mashable, there’s an engaging article by Mark Drapeau (and a lively comment stream) on possible alternatives to the rapidly-aging “2.0″ cliché, and some thoughts about what will – or at least might – succeed it.

While the focus of Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please is specifically on the U.S. federal government, the discussion unquestionably has broader implications, not only for language and terminology, but – far more importantly – for the underlying missions and directions of the organizations who now find themselves smack-dab in the middle of rapidly-shifting customer expectations (for customer, read: member, voter, constituent, volunteer, parishoner, donor)…and the largely internet-based social tools needed to meet them.

It’s important to realize that the particular exchange over at Mashable is specifically about language and what we should call things, rather that the specifics of those things themselves.

Personally, I’m all for a new, cliché-free naming convention for all of this 2.0 business. Or, at the very least, a new set of clichés to replace the ones we’re using now.

Besides, if we continue with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 metaphor, (one that’s been borrowed from software development), there will be those who will be unable to resist the temptation to take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, i.e., incremental upgrades…with predictably illogical - or at least impractical results. After all, if we’re continually improving it, shouldn’t government 2.0 naturally become 2.1, 2.2 and beyond? This, in turn, begs some further questions:

• Do we get Government sub-version 2.1.1 (not to be confused with government subversion, of course) when certain agencies (finally) authorize their staff’s use of something newer than an ancient version of the now-unsupported Netscape Navigator browser for official use?
• When President-elect Barack Obama finally quits smoking, will this be considered an update…or just a (nicotine) patch?

Since this morning, I’ve been especially partial to this gentlemen’s coinage: WeGov.

Other ideas abound: Activist Kevin Bondelli (possibly the Gen-Y/millenial’s successor to Joe Trippi), prefers User-Generated Government.

While my inner geek might pine for Quantum Government, NanoGov or similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we’re going to create meaningful slogans and coinages for everyone’s use that represent at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let’s keep ‘em short, sweet and simple.

Ultimately, the particular terminology that ultimately gains traction to describe citizen-centric, responsive government at every level pales in importance, compared to the people and policies – and, yes, the social technologies necessary to undergird it. We’ve only just begun.

More to come…