There's something so absolutely, delightfully geeky about this. Where to begin? First off, did you know that there's a PlainLanguage.gov? The deal is thus: for at least a decade and a half now, a group of federal employees -- a cabal, perhaps, or a cell of agitators, at least -- have been working, behind the scenes, with little attention, to advance the cause of plain language in government. There's even a network: PLAIN, or the Plain Language Action Network. See how wonderfully straightforward that is? It says what it means, and means what it says.

The big, big news is that yesterday, the plain language movement scored a major coup. The House of Representatives passed, on a vote of 386-33, the Plain Language Act. (The vote was bipartisan, for sure, but all thirty three nays were Republican.) The Senate passed a very similar bill through committee in December, which means that we're one step closer to the achieving the ultimate goal of requiring that the federal government stop talking in jargon and gobbledygook. The PLA would require that the federal government write its reports, documents, letters, and forms in language that "the intended audience can easily understand and use," writing that is "clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain writing." You could, if you were feeling critical, argue that referencing "plain writing" in a definition of plain writing is disconcertingly recursive. But plain language is a journey, not an absolute.

Stayed tuned for how the plain language movement is relevant for us here. But first, some more of this social justice enterprise's delicious history...

A year has passed since the Federal Web Managers Council passed a copy of its highly-regarded white paper "Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government" (pdf) to the Obama transition team. On the fourteen recommendations made in the report, veteran federal web manager Candi Harrison sees a mixed bag of progress. A handful of recommendations are hinged upon funding processes that haven't yet gotten a chance to play themselves out, like the building of multilingual websites. On the others, Harrison gives points to the development of data standards, the posting of public comments, the use of social media, and the crafting of standardized job descriptions for web content managers within government. Deductions are taken for multiplying the number of sometimes redundant government websites, the failure to do regular content reviews and user testing, and government sites that use prime online real estate to tout their own initiatives and projects rather than to help the public find what it needs from its government.

In short, says Harris, year one of the digital transformation of government can be summed up thusly: "Good progress in a few areas. Painful slippage in others. The jury’s still out where recommendations required funding." Worth a read.

Hello everyone. I’m thrilled and honored to be a new contributing blogger on techPresident.com and Personal Democracy Forum. This is my first extended attempt at blogging, so bear with me as I get into my own groove and work out some kinks as I go along (I told my bosses this would just be a “pilot” so that should give me some latitude if it turns out I’m not very good at this!). But seriously, in full disclosure, you’ll see from my bio that I’m no professional writer or journalist like many of the other bloggers. I doubt you’ll be reading my posts because of my brilliant prose. But what I’m hoping I can offer—as co-chair of the Federal Web Managers Council—is an insider’s view of the government web manager community and the challenges and issues we face every day in trying to transform government websites to better serve the public. I want to share some observations from inside the trenches. And I want to get a dialogue going about how we can work together to effect meaningful, lasting change. Over the past year, I’ve seen too many conversations in the echo chamber, where government people just talk to government people or the “we-want-to-reform-government” folks only talk to other government reform folks. This blog is a small attempt to try to address that.

Deciding to "go naked" and expose yourself online is a difficult enough decision. When you represent some part of the sprawling federal government, though, there's more to contend with than just personal demureness. Federal agencies, reports NextGov's Gautham Nagesh, are in the very final stages of negotiations with YouTube, aimed at creating a safe place for government departments to play, a la the House and Senate's walled YouTube gardens. The Federal Web Managers Council is helping to lead the talks, and the sticking points are two. First, an indemnification clause that refers YouTube disputes to state court. That's a no-no for federal agencies, which are required to settle things in federal courts. The second is the easily-solvable matter of videos of scantily-clad vixens showing up alongside a FEMA "How to Apply for a Housing Reimbursement" clip.

The State Department -- a department for whom social media carries, arguably, the most promise and potential peril -- had been aggressive under the Bush Administration in using the Internet to engage in what it branded "Public Diplomacy 2.0," with initiatives like the cross-cultural social-networking site ExchangesConnect and the Alliance of Youth Movements. National Journal's Amy Harder surveys the landscape and sees signs that new Secretary Hillary Clinton is committed to a webby State. But one bit of contrary evidence: Undersecretary James Glassman, PD 2.0's main champion in Foggy Bottom, skedaddled when Obama took office. He's yet to have been replaced.

Launched at yesterday lunchtime, the second round of Change.gov's Open for Questions -- the Obama transition team's attempt to tap into the questions Americans most want their next president to answer -- has already pulled in 1,753,453 votes from 39,860 people on 33,150 questions...The Nation's Ari Melber sees in Open for Questions a chance to advance question that the press corps seems loathe to ask: will President Obama appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush Administration on torture, warrantless wiretapping, and more?...The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet is beating up on Obama for his Seat at the Table feature, which posts the printed materials from meetings held by the transition team...and more.

(We recently posted a white paper from the Federal Web Managers Council detailing how the incoming presidential administration should focus on "putting citizens first" when it comes to the web. The FWMC, an interagency group composed of more than two dozen web managers from cabinet-level agencies, independent agencies, and the legislative and judicial branches, was established in 2004 to build U.S. government sites "on par with the best websites in the world" and create a nationwide community of skilled and creative government web managers. Earlier this year, the FWMC began preparing for the 2009 presidential transition. The incoming administration will enter a world where rules and regulations make the simplest Web 2.0 acts -- posting to YouTube or creating a Facebook group, for example -- the cause of bureaucratic headaches. Those are challenges the members of FWMC know intimately, and in this new paper, "Social Media and the Federal Government," they detail how the Obama administration can overcome them. -- the editors)