Skip to content
Citizen Infrastructure

Connecting the tools — interoperability & standards

The Civic Tech Field Guide lists more than 11,000 projects. One app might have ten users; another a hundred; Brasil Participativo has well over a million. Almost none of them talk to each other. Closing that gap — making the tools, and the data inside them, interoperable — is one of the quieter but more important frontiers in citizen infrastructure.

Why it’s hard, and why it matters

Section titled “Why it’s hard, and why it matters”

It’s genuinely surprising that a field this open-source and pro-social hasn’t built shared plumbing already. Part of the reason is that everyone is busy keeping their own project alive. But the payoff is large, and it isn’t only technical: connecting the tools also connects the teams and people behind them. Groups working on the same problem in different countries discover each other, share goals, and start building together. Interoperability is, in part, how a scattered field becomes a movement.

What’s starting to move

Section titled “What’s starting to move”

After years of stagnation, a few things picked up momentum:

  • A trade body. ACTE — Association Civic Tech Europe represents participation-platform companies at the EU level — a sign the sector is maturing, and a way to channel existing public resources toward participation tools.
  • Bilateral team-ups. Platforms increasingly acknowledge that different tools are good for different parts of a process, and partner up directly (for example, Go Vocal working with others). Useful, but still one-off and hand-built.
  • Open standards. There’s an open standard for mapping hiking trails — there should be one for describing participation projects, participants, supporters, and public action. Italy’s publiccode.yml (Developers Italia) is a step in this direction: a metadata standard that describes public-sector software so it can be found and understood across borders.
  • Aggregators. Metagov is building a tool with the Scottish Government to combine many participation tools into one coherent experience, alongside ontology work to give the field a shared vocabulary. A related proposal, civic intelligence infrastructure, goes a step further — normalising the output of many incompatible tools into one legible intelligence layer.
  • Protocols nobody can capture. RadicalxChange’s Plural Stack argues Europe’s answer to Big Tech isn’t its own national champions or yet more regulation but open, interoperable protocols that no single actor can monopolise — grounded in diverse ecosystems, community-led standards, decentralisation, and user/creator value, and worked through technical, economic, and social layers. The same instinct as protocol and plurality, aimed squarely at digital sovereignty.
  • Honest comparison. People Powered and the Field Guide reviewed around 30 participation platforms for which features they have, whether you can export your data, and what they interoperate with — the baseline that real interoperability has to clear.

A familiar idea, wearing work clothes

Section titled “A familiar idea, wearing work clothes”

Interoperability is the practical cousin of ideas already in this wiki: protocol (coordinating without a central ruler), modular politics (composing governance from interchangeable parts), and the Commoning Standard (shared, reusable patterns for self-governance). Standards are how those ideas stop being philosophy and start being plumbing.

Sources

Section titled “Sources”