4 ms·

Github, not "git." They don't appear to publish the XML formats they're using. There's no description of their fees/pricing. None of the software is open-sou

Github, not "git." They don't appear to publish the XML formats they're using. There's no description of their fees/pricing. None of the software is open-source. There's barely any details about how the software even works. It's about as opaque as they seem to feel they can get away with. "Email us for pricing" is not how a service like that should work.

Terr_ 2y ago
> Github, not "git." No, I stand by my original phrasing: The important part here is that legislative changes are being recorded and shown through a version control system (i.e. git) not the fact that one of the repos is publicly visible via one of several possible web-GUI services. It would still be somewhat laudable even if the usage was: "Here's the repo, clone it yourself an poke around with desktop tools." In contrast, the opposite mix of "here's a website that shows diffs but you can't have the underlying data" would suck. > They don't appear to publish the XML formats they're using. I see XSD files...? Plus, this original design doc is probably still relevant. [0] [0] https://github.com/DCCouncil/dc-code-prototype?tab=readme-ov-file#dc-code-xml https://github.com/DCCouncil/dc-code-prototype?tab=readme-ov...