Some feedback from Belgium here. I think it all boils down to submitting data and the (communication about, or expectation of) corrections.
Correction and discussion
If an entry (or part thereof) was not accepted the first time for one reason or another (maybe the information provided wasn’t clear, or there was a mistake in scoring the different criteria), and this was challenged in this forum, it seems to take a rather long time to
- either correct the score in the index, based upon the additional received
- or discuss it on the forum, and explain what the final decision will be
During the last months, some entries were rejected and scores were lowered, because (as mentioned in a blog post or comment), false positives were filtered out. Fair enough, some of the info provided to the GODI may not have been clear, mistakes on both ends of the screen do happen etc.
But because every “place” wants to improve their score (which only demonstrates that people value the index, otherwise they would not put so much effort in it), they are eager to see some positive changes as well …
Please do note that there are also resource constraints at the government level (at least in Belgium, but probably in other countries as well).
GODI is not the only open data benchmark - there are also surveys/benchmarks from OECD, EU Data Landscape, … - and often the public servants filling out / following-up these rather different surveys are the same people who are promoting open data and are working on open data related projects.
So the smoother the discussion goes, the easier it is for us to explain why a specific dataset is not considered to be open enough and what can be done about it.
And yes, this means that next year we’ll probably have to put more effort into “getting it right the first time” and check if the datasets really are easy to find (and understand) when submitting entries.
But it also means faster corrections / decisions just before and just after (promoting) the release of the GODI. I do realize this is mostly an effort on voluntarily basis, but now it’s rather difficult to explain to others what the benefit of the GODI is, while having to wait weeks for a simple correction or a final decision on the score.
On the plus size: it’s already a good point that this can be discussed openly, and that people from all over the world put effort in it
But maybe next year some extra OKFN resources should be brought to the table for the follow-up and faster corrections / motivation of final decision.