4 ms·

I understand why it's kept secret during negotiation, but the terms of the secrecy kept representatives from copying out portions of the text for analysis durin

I understand why it's kept secret during negotiation, but the terms of the secrecy kept representatives from copying out portions of the text for analysis during the negotiations. This is significant because the 90 day time line is insufficient to read and analyse such a large reaching trade agreement. Then under the short time frame, the argument becomes 'we worked for years on this deal' don't vote no on any one point you disagree with because it's tied up in a big Gordian knot with a hundred other points. If software were written the way we negotiate trade deals, we'd fire the programmers.

tptacek 11y ago
All due respect but I call bullshit on the idea that months of time is insufficient for hundreds of Congresspeople to work with their million dollar staffs and the armies of lobbyists for business, labor, the environment, and tech policy that will also analyze the bill gratis. I know they won't review the enabling bill carefully. But it's not because the bill isn't transparent. It's because reviewing the bill is work, and none of them are excited about spending their precious cycles on work rather than political status games. If this bill had been public 9 months ago and voted on 9 months from now, the amount of scrutiny legislators would give it would be roughly equivalent.
- digikata 11y ago
  So if I suggested that say there is a 100k line update scattered amid a 20M line in-production codebase and you have 90 days before that code goes live and cannot be changed and cannot be revoked. Would you feel that 90 days is sufficient? I wouldn't. It's not just staff to read the text, it would be identifying and lining up experts with context in each area to weigh in. So far corporate lawyers have been embedded into the process but few representatives of the people. So I think we should approach this with deep caution.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Yes, I think a team as large as the one assembled to deal with the TPP could easily handle a 100kloc patchset for a 20MM line project. Teams much smaller than that handle gigantic patchsets all the time.
    - digikata 11y ago
      When code is irrevocable, the team sizes and/or time to handle the code should go way up. I suspect most of us have internalized a gut feel for estimates along the lines of the Linux kernel process or other equivalent commercial low-reliability software process, when with long lived legislation, we should take more cues along the lines of the Space Shuttle code development process (or perhaps I should liken it more towards approving and implementing a new crypto algorithm...) as more reasonable approaches.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  You make it sound like the TPP is the only bill these congresspeople will have to digest in the next 2 to 3 months, but I suspect they'll have plenty of other policies vying for their attention. Even if it was the only policy they need to get their head round, what's the rush? Is the world going to fall apart if it takes a year to debate? Isn't our understanding of the intricacies of the bill likely to improve over a longer debate?
- drdeca 11y ago
  Who cares if the congress people have enough time to read it all? If I wouldn't have time to read it all, if it were all I did other than eat or sleep in the allotted time, then there is not enough time for it to be sufficiently considered, and should not be passed.

tptacek 11y ago

All due respect but I call bullshit on the idea that months of time is insufficient for hundreds of Congresspeople to work with their million dollar staffs and the armies of lobbyists for business, labor, the environment, and tech policy that will also analyze the bill gratis. I know they won't review the enabling bill carefully. But it's not because the bill isn't transparent. It's because reviewing the bill is work, and none of them are excited about spending their precious cycles on work rather than political status games. If this bill had been public 9 months ago and voted on 9 months from now, the amount of scrutiny legislators would give it would be roughly equivalent.

digikata 11y ago
So if I suggested that say there is a 100k line update scattered amid a 20M line in-production codebase and you have 90 days before that code goes live and cannot be changed and cannot be revoked. Would you feel that 90 days is sufficient? I wouldn't. It's not just staff to read the text, it would be identifying and lining up experts with context in each area to weigh in. So far corporate lawyers have been embedded into the process but few representatives of the people. So I think we should approach this with deep caution.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yes, I think a team as large as the one assembled to deal with the TPP could easily handle a 100kloc patchset for a 20MM line project. Teams much smaller than that handle gigantic patchsets all the time.
  - digikata 11y ago
    When code is irrevocable, the team sizes and/or time to handle the code should go way up. I suspect most of us have internalized a gut feel for estimates along the lines of the Linux kernel process or other equivalent commercial low-reliability software process, when with long lived legislation, we should take more cues along the lines of the Space Shuttle code development process (or perhaps I should liken it more towards approving and implementing a new crypto algorithm...) as more reasonable approaches.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
You make it sound like the TPP is the only bill these congresspeople will have to digest in the next 2 to 3 months, but I suspect they'll have plenty of other policies vying for their attention. Even if it was the only policy they need to get their head round, what's the rush? Is the world going to fall apart if it takes a year to debate? Isn't our understanding of the intricacies of the bill likely to improve over a longer debate?
drdeca 11y ago
Who cares if the congress people have enough time to read it all? If I wouldn't have time to read it all, if it were all I did other than eat or sleep in the allotted time, then there is not enough time for it to be sufficiently considered, and should not be passed.