I reproduce below, together with the original text, the reply I posted on https://votoelettronico.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/90/comment-page-1/#comment-4 to a criticism about the absence of electronic voting from our Open Assembly a few days ago. Apart from the opportunity to collect the opinions of the Members on the subject after the event, it seems to me an interesting starting point for reflection on the theme of "innovation as a value in itself" or of "innovation as an offer in the face of a demand" . In the comment I deliberately avoided taking up the polemical vein of the author of the post, but constructive reflection is always welcome here on our site. What do you think?

 States General of Innovation, really innovative?

The assembly has just concluded States General of Innovation, an association that wants to be a point of reference in terms of creativity and innovation. In their discussions, there is often talk of breaking down the digital divide and renewing the state through Open Government, but a question arises spontaneously when reading the invitation to participate in the meeting. How is it possible to be promoters of a true and profound technological and social innovation if the assembly still takes place only with physical seats and you have to go to Bertinoro to vote?

The physical assembly is certainly a useful moment of meeting and discussion but excludes many, who, however, could have discussed and voted from home.

This is the reply.

Dear Dr Pugliatti,
I am a member of the Board of the General States of Innovation and I accept the criticism you have expressed. I'll try to explain the reasons for our choice since I think it's the starting point for a useful discussion within us as well.
We started the process to integrate physical voting procedures with electronic voting procedures as permitted by our Articles of Association, but we did not proceed in this direction for two main reasons.
The first – decisive – is that we have surveyed the interest in this option among our shareholders and have not received any requests to that effect. It would have been the classic technological answer to a question that does not exist at the moment. Of course, an electronic vote could have been held up just to give a signal, but the hard practice of managing an association that is completely based on volunteering requires us to take into account the available resources and concentrate resources, human and otherwise, to provide answers to priority needs.
The second reason was the clear will to count and understand who really "believes" in the General States of Innovation. Three days in Bertinoro - a splendid place - were a great commitment of time first of all and also a decent expense these days. Many Members have come and some new members have joined. They have been three truly excellent and useful days. It is obvious that in this way we have lost some people who would have liked to be there, but objectively could not. However, our association is still in its infancy. It must grow and become stronger thanks to motivated Members who know each other. Personally, I find it right that in this context the shareholder who put SGI ahead of the many other commitments that we all have should be privileged. In the future, when the team is close-knit and cohesive, then electronic voting will certainly be an option used for everyone's convenience.