openpatata is an ambitious (more ambitious than I originally imagined it to be) open-parliament initiative. Its flagship of yore [currently unavailable] was an all-encompassing parliamentary monitoring website (think openparliament.ca or theyvoteforyou.org.au) that presented information on bills and regulations, Members of Parliament, and plenary agendas. I've managed to gather quite a bit of data which has yet to be put it to good use; that is to say, is not yet transformative or especially informative. I was overcome by the breadth of the work and resolved to developing smaller individual component(s).

neavouli is a crowd-sourced candidate database and accompanying view layer.  It went live about a month from the 2016 legislative election and has been co-developed by me and Neofytos.  (The original software is MySociety's yournextrepresentative.)  Contributors were a Green Party rep, several candidates, and private individuals.  The project raised questions of partiality as it relates to faithfulness of reproduction and the variation of the faithfulness of reproduction [1].

1: If we're to break a candidacy statement apart or condense it, or if we're to paraphrase it, if we're to purge it of its original tone and intent, are we doing a service or disservice to the public?  Are we removing or are we introducing bias in this way?  And if this process is performed inconsistently, would that perhaps favour one candidate over another?