An additional effect is that it has sparked a conversation around the concept of transparency in the non-profit sector. Even before the Kiva story broke, Beth Kanter got some of us thinking about transparency when it comes to a non-profit’s Web metrics. In the comments, Holly Ross added that transparency is currently on the minds of her and the folks at NTEN. And where else have we heard about the priority in transparency before? –> Government.

Since my day-job leans more into the public health and government agency arena–I couldn’t help but see the parallels between government 2.0 and non-profit 2.0 (for the sake of better terminology). We may have different goals and end objectives, but the concepts both verticals must address (transparency, policy, management, buy-in, metrics, etc.) cross both lines. I think the Path of the Blue Eye folks were onto something when they posted the other day about looking for learning opportunities outside your comfort zone. As evidence, I commend Steve Radick, who did just that when he recently posted about the crossings between government 2.0 and sports 2.0.

The sharing of the line between government 2.0 and non-profit 2.0 was further solidified when I received news today of the AwesomeGov Fund organized by GovLoop and GovDelivery. This initiative is literally–combining and furthering the collision of government people with non-profit values–think philanthropy 2.0. Either way, it has me thinking that our worlds may just be more alike than different and that perhaps–the next event/conference/meetup needs to be a variety show for all us to get out of our comfort zone and look across the playing field.

PS: This past week, I also had the opportunity to talk with Andrew Conrad about Church 2.0–and again, there was much dialogue that ran quite similiar to conversations we’ve had around the conference table or that I’ve had with non-profit leaders. It’s almost creepy.

PSS: Please forgive all the “2.0” references–it’s just the most efficient way to get the point across.