3 ms·
I’m personally not OK with a system that enables a single individual (the "lawyer" in the article) to declare modification to a law as insubstantial, then modif
by CodeWriter23 8y ago
I’m personally not OK with a system that enables a single individual (the "lawyer" in the article) to declare modification to a law as insubstantial, then modify the law.
Some review process needs to be there, and frankly, even a typo correction IMO needs to be run by the Mayor because she/he signed one thing into law and this process changes what they signed. We cannot ever assume we know the intent of the Chief Executive, even when “obviously” in error.
OTOH, a diff system for law is awesome. California uses a similar system but it is cumbersome to do things like “show me how this section evolved over time”.
- jcranmer 8y agoJudging from screenshots, the person who accepted the change was on the DC City Council.
- CodeWriter23 8y agoStill, not the Mayor. And, did it unilaterally, inviting abuse.
- zanny 8y agoIf you want to abuse the law doing so in a public ledger that anyone accessing has a copy of (such that just reverting commits on github doesn't remove from them everyones histories) seems like a really unwise way of going about it. Whats important is having eyes on what changes are made, and if you want to track changes and revisions to something... github (and gitlab, phabricator, etc) is pretty close to the optimization of that problem humanity has developed up to this point.
- craftyguy 8y agoNo law was changed. The title is straight up clickbait.
- CodeWriter23 8y agoActually, it was changed. A reference from "Subchapter I" was changed to "Subchapter II", under the authority of the single lawyer that reviewed it.
- lozenge 8y agoHere's the original pull request: https://github.com/DCCouncil/dc-law-xml/pull/134/files https://github.com/DCCouncil/dc-law-xml/pull/134/files The text already mentioned "The Freedom of Information Act of 1976" unambiguously, but the metadata was incorrect.
- alistairSH 8y agoThere was a review performed via pull request. In this case,a small typo was corrected - no further action required.
- CodeWriter23 8y agoYes, in this case, no harm done. But the process of checks and balances that are the backbone of our system of government were circumvented. Those checks and balances exist to create a hope of detecting abuse when it happens.
- billsmithaustin 8y agoIs is possible that a similarly light-weight process would have been used if the correction had been submitted in a typewritten letter or over email?
- fao_ 8y agoIndeed. Even something as small as an added comma might seem a good idea but could drastically change the reading of the law in question.
- nulbyte 8y ago> and this process changes what they signed The mayor didn't sign a website. The author clearly indicates the website did not accurately reflect the act as enacted at the very beginning of the article: "Comparing the DC Code to the act that made the change, I noticed that something was amiss..."
- CodeWriter23 8y agoPerhaps you should read the article. > This sort of “technical correction,” as lawyers would call it, didn’t need to be passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor.