Unfortunately, it looks like this solution does not address the balance sheet side of the equation, which is where most towns are in dire straights (even if they don't admit it as they have more latitude in not recognizing the future costs of say pensions than corporations do). Until people have true transparency into this area, it will be hard to make good decisions as an electorate.
Again, think its a great step forward...on a very long road
As usual, most HN comments are negative. I've met Balaji, and he can talk some good hype when he wants to, but I think it's hardly disingenuous or linkbaity to emphasize that OpenGov already has customers with $50 billion in revenues/spending. It could potentially be used by any city, state, or national government, or really any large organization spending public dollars. That's an enormous potential market.
(Shameless plug: I will be presenting about our start-up tomorrow)
It's not just A16Z who's getting into this space. Check out the new fund by Ron Bouganim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/15...
And obviously, Y-Combinator is now getting into the government space. https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/
It's been a slow build, but the industry is huge.
https://sausalitoca.opengov.com/transparency#/624/breakdown=...
Prior to reading the article I thought the main purpose of opengov was to help local governments facilitate open access to their data. When I have come across a government that uses opengov it is in reality more of a gate keeper. Adding another level of control to government data rather than letting citizens have direct access to the raw data.
The change in focus to internal use by governments could indicate a lack of money being spent for the original purpose.
1. $50B startup (ie market cap)
2. $50 billion customer list (whatever that means)
3. Customers with $50B in Revenue
4. Customers with $50B in spending budgets.
For those who want the gist of what this article/startup really is, it's a centralized platform for managing budgets in a transparent way used by governments internally (to create reports, manage expenses, etc). It makes it more efficient for different departments to collectively manage and access budgets. Apparently it gets $50B of government spending flowing through it's systems. This internal usage is then presented to citizens in a Mint.com like format in the name of transparency (like here: https://losangeles.opengov.com/)
Pretty cool and I wish them well, but it is nowhere near what the title implies.
EDIT: I toned down the criticism slightly and made it more specific (changed "worst" to "most poorly prepared").
As you stated the thread has been mainly about the title. That was what posters found the most interesting part of a fluff piece.
One reason why baity titles are precluded is that they cause precisely the sort of bikeshed title war that brought this thread down.
I'm actually fine with the title change as the original title seems to be confusing to some.