2 ms·

> My edit wasn’t substantive. This sort of “technical correction,” as lawyers would call it, didn’t need to be passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor. O

> My edit wasn’t substantive. This sort of “technical correction,” as lawyers would call it, didn’t need to be passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor. Okay, so they didn't "change the law." It's a cool story but not a fan of clickbait titles either.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
It would probably go over better if the phrase about changing the law were in quotations marks to indicate it is kind of being tongue in cheek. It's not entirely inaccurate, more like a smidgen of double entendre. I mean, I'm sympathetic to your complaint. It implies something more substantive than it really means. But I also appreciate word play. (shrug)
conquistadog 8y ago
A fix is indeed a change, even if minor. To be fair, my own distaste for clickbait is palpable here. But I think I can suspend it in light of the importance of this article's bigger point. I've always thought this sounded like a good idea, and to see it actually happening is pretty amazing. Here's hoping it catches on.
dgreisen 8y ago
As with most things in the law, it is complicated. The District legislative process shares many similarities to the federal government's. They pass laws, which are the official representation of the will of the Council. These laws are kinda like hand-crafted change sets. Change sets that can change other change sets. These change sets are almost impossible to use as they are, so the Council creates an official compilation of all the change sets as applied and organized by subject. This is the Code of the District of Columbia. Usually, when people think about "the law" they are thinking about the code, because that is how people interact with it. The laws as passed by the Council cannot (and should not) be changed via pull request. Here, the useful representation of those laws, the representation used by everybody who actually interacts with the law, has been updated via PR to more perfectly reflect the underlying laws.
baroffoos 8y ago
They didn't change it if you think of the intent of the law and the words it was written with to be different things.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

It would probably go over better if the phrase about changing the law were in quotations marks to indicate it is kind of being tongue in cheek. It's not entirely inaccurate, more like a smidgen of double entendre. I mean, I'm sympathetic to your complaint. It implies something more substantive than it really means. But I also appreciate word play. (shrug)

conquistadog 8y ago

A fix is indeed a change, even if minor. To be fair, my own distaste for clickbait is palpable here. But I think I can suspend it in light of the importance of this article's bigger point. I've always thought this sounded like a good idea, and to see it actually happening is pretty amazing. Here's hoping it catches on.

dgreisen 8y ago

As with most things in the law, it is complicated. The District legislative process shares many similarities to the federal government's. They pass laws, which are the official representation of the will of the Council. These laws are kinda like hand-crafted change sets. Change sets that can change other change sets. These change sets are almost impossible to use as they are, so the Council creates an official compilation of all the change sets as applied and organized by subject. This is the Code of the District of Columbia. Usually, when people think about "the law" they are thinking about the code, because that is how people interact with it. The laws as passed by the Council cannot (and should not) be changed via pull request. Here, the useful representation of those laws, the representation used by everybody who actually interacts with the law, has been updated via PR to more perfectly reflect the underlying laws.

baroffoos 8y ago

They didn't change it if you think of the intent of the law and the words it was written with to be different things.