A bit of a tricky moment this morning. As you might have spotted, Downing Street has launched an initiative asking 'public sector workers' to help the government find ways to implement the massive spending cuts proposed in Tuesday's budget 'in a way that is fair and responsible'. And as has become the norm for such initiatives, there's a comment-enabled website dedicated to it, built on WordPress. A 'hooray' is obligatory at this point, although to be honest, that's getting a little predictable.

In fact, it's a return to an initiative launched by Nick Clegg last summer:

The people who are best placed to tell us where money is not being well spent are the teachers, nurses, social workers and other public servants who work so hard day and night on our behalf. Politicians should stop talking over the heads of public servants. We need to listen to the people in the know on how we can better run public services, making sure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is well spent. That’s what ‘Asking People In The Know’ is all about.

... but since it's all happening again, and since the 2009 website is now giving 404 errors, one must assume it wasn't especially fruitful.

Anyway... If you have a look at the new website, you'll note a startling resemblance to the Programme For Government site which I built a few weeks back. It's very obviously a derivative work, based on my code. I didn't build it, and I didn't get paid for it. My contract gives the Crown the right to reuse my work; and in fact, I'm very glad they did. It's entirely in keeping with the open-source spirit... not to mention the need to find cost savings.

But as anyone following me on Twitter may have spotted, there was one slight hiccup. By convention, WordPress themes include details of their author. The original PFG theme notes me as its originator - obviously. But the derivative theme didn't. My name had been deleted, and replaced with the names of two people I've never met or spoken to: at least one of whom appears to be a direct commercial competitor.

I was not best pleased. I sent out a tweet to that effect: and to the credit of one of the individuals concerned, he subsequently added a line of acknowledgement. My name is duly checked, and I'm happy again.

I am absolutely not suggesting there was any attempt to infringe my intellectual property rights, or deprive me of a deserved payment. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that it was a simple oversight. But I needed to make the point.

Acknowledgement is the currency of the open source movement. There are communities of developers spending their free time building these tools, not to mention businesses freely handing over the fruits of their labours, resulting in you getting phenomenally powerful tools for £0.00. Saying 'thank you' is really the least you can do; and it's often the only 'payment' that the open-source contributor receives. Don't forget.

Not for the first time, Steph Gray lays down a good model to follow. On every page in his Commentariat theme is an explicit credit for the Whitespace theme by Brian Gardner; and there's a note of thanks to my regular collaborator Simon Wheatley in its style.css file.

And in case anyone's interested: yes, I do plan to write something for the consultation - it's also open to 'private sector partners working within public sector'. Now, I wonder what I might propose?

Which rather begs the question, what should the Treasury themselves be doing? The Chancellor standing up in the Commons chamber, and (sorry) droning on for an hour or so, throwing numbers around like confetti, then BANG! a huge wad of paper lands on your newsdesk as he sits down - it's simply not an effective way to communicate. There's too much to take in, too many big numbers, too much jargon, in too short a space of time.

I'm wondering if the Treasury shouldn't be running an enhanced live video stream, with bullet points appearing as the Chancellor makes his announcement; and graphs / charts / etc in a second window. I've worked in the TV channel gallery on Budget day; it's chaotic, as a hapless producer tries to make sense of it all, picking out the headlines in real time. Meanwhile, of course, the Treasury staff are sitting on copies of the full text of the speech, with all the advance notice they need to make a really good job of it. It's not as if they aren't doing the production work already, with a consumer-friendly leaflet being a regular output each time.

Absolutely correctly, Sir James says the potential of any such scheme 'lies in the extent to which it is created by consumers for consumers.' He points to a 'fundamental' distinction between 'identity management', where systems are built for the benefit of the database manager (ie government, in this case); and 'identity assurance', which 'meets an important consumer need without necessarily providing any spin-off benefits to the owner of any database'.

The national security aspect becomes a pleasant side-effect. As he rightly notes, 'a consumer-led universal scheme would better deliver on national security goals than any scheme with its origins in security and data sharing.'

Effectively, he calls for a 'Chip and PIN' card with a photograph on it: three independent factors - something you have, something you know, and something you are'. 'It is the combination of such independent factors, rather than their technological complexity and individual strength,' he writes, 'which largely determines the resilience of the verification process.' Well, it's certainly got simplicity in its favour.

He says explicitly that 'full biometric images (other than photographs) should not be kept'; that the scheme should be operated independently of Government; and that it should be provided free of charge. But no matter how welcome and compelling his recommendations might be, there's little sign of the Home Office swaying.

If you've got any interest in this subject, I urge you to read (at least) the executive summary of the Crosby report. It's the most articulate and balanced review of the subject that I've yet seen. And it's a subject we all need to care about. Nothing right now cuts as deeply to the heart of civil engagement - both in terms of what it is, and how it gets rolled out. And the signs aren't yet good.