4 ms·

Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems

by Ericson2314 9mo ago

Arrowmaster 9mo ago
The point is that they don't want it to be that transparent to everyone.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > point is that they don't want it to be that transparent to everyone One part, yes. The balance between compromise and partisan showboating shifts when everything is public. But nine parts, it’s just not how multi-party devolved negotiations work. Everyone has their own preferred system, whether it’s Word redlines, in-person edits, text and e-mailed strike-outs or possibly a formal version-control system. They aren’t compatible and they don’t generally have to be.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems What systems are you thinking of? I’ve provided private feedback on state and federal bills. I was, myself, soliciting feedback from friends and acquaintances. In some cases, that was a back and forth over text. Sometimes it was redlines. I consolidated that into an email that was sometimes a redline, sometimes a strike-this-add-that. If I were required to use a state-mandated version control system (a) I’d flip out at whoever required that and (b) just push the consolidated version once I was satisfied with it from my end. Many other times, these bills are workshopped in person or—increasingly—over Zoom. Part of what makes that work is you can say something dumb, be corrected, and then not have that be part of any permanent record.
- cxr 9mo ago
  Of course doing things off the record is going to result in there being no record. What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread. (Even if you disagree with the idea being implemented, that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented.)
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git. I'm literally saying I think this law has this problem, and then I'm being asked to fix it. So I try to fix it, collecting the input I need to so, and then send back my recommendation. This simply isn't a flow that survives being overly formalised. > that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented I'm not pretending, I literally don't see it. We already have official committee versions, et cetera. What are you going to do, make it a prosecutable offense for two staffers to discuss a bill over coffee? The top of this thread claims it's difficult to impossible to determine who made these contributions to this North Dakota bill. Maybe it is. I don't know enough about their legislative process to refute that. But I'm going to guess it probably isn't, at least to the point that you can figure out which LegCo version first contained these fake minerals, and who submitted that.
    - cxr 9mo ago
      You are conflating "version control" with "the way GitHub/whatever works". (I mean, I guess. That's the only way your comments here make sense.) If someone takes your recommended draft and then records in a ledger somewhere which draft revision(s) you were working with to prepare your draft/proposed changes, and they store copies of all these drafts, then that's version control. It doesn't have to be Git (though, as the other commenter said, there's nothing mentioned so far that's incompatible with it), nor Mercurial, SVN, Perforce, or any other other existing version control system you've heard of, and you wouldn't have to be personally operating any of the clients that actually operate on the VCS's data model.
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > If someone takes your recommended draft and then records in a ledger somewhere which draft revision(s) you were working with to prepare your draft/proposed changes, and they store copies of all these drafts, then that's version control I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identified? Let’s go local. I’m right now working on getting Flock Safety out of my community. Part of that involves co-ordinating with members of vulnerable communities. I’m sure as hell not getting all of them to sign their names to a draft measure. Yet every single one of them have added value to the discussion and project. This is the reality of negotiation, coalition building and reconciliation. Some of it is untraced for convenience. Some of it is hidden for corrupt purposes. And some of it is secret to give room for honesty and grace. I have no doubt we could force lawmakers to use version control. I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system. I don’t see that being a step forward. And I don’t see it hampering to any degree the powerful and connected. (You’ve argued this well, by the way, and I think my position has shifted from it’s impossible to it’s impossible without compromising what makes democracy work.)

Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems

Arrowmaster 9mo ago

The point is that they don't want it to be that transparent to everyone.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> point is that they don't want it to be that transparent to everyone One part, yes. The balance between compromise and partisan showboating shifts when everything is public. But nine parts, it’s just not how multi-party devolved negotiations work. Everyone has their own preferred system, whether it’s Word redlines, in-person edits, text and e-mailed strike-outs or possibly a formal version-control system. They aren’t compatible and they don’t generally have to be.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems What systems are you thinking of? I’ve provided private feedback on state and federal bills. I was, myself, soliciting feedback from friends and acquaintances. In some cases, that was a back and forth over text. Sometimes it was redlines. I consolidated that into an email that was sometimes a redline, sometimes a strike-this-add-that. If I were required to use a state-mandated version control system (a) I’d flip out at whoever required that and (b) just push the consolidated version once I was satisfied with it from my end. Many other times, these bills are workshopped in person or—increasingly—over Zoom. Part of what makes that work is you can say something dumb, be corrected, and then not have that be part of any permanent record.

cxr 9mo ago
Of course doing things off the record is going to result in there being no record. What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread. (Even if you disagree with the idea being implemented, that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented.)
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git. I'm literally saying I think this law has this problem, and then I'm being asked to fix it. So I try to fix it, collecting the input I need to so, and then send back my recommendation. This simply isn't a flow that survives being overly formalised. > that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented I'm not pretending, I literally don't see it. We already have official committee versions, et cetera. What are you going to do, make it a prosecutable offense for two staffers to discuss a bill over coffee? The top of this thread claims it's difficult to impossible to determine who made these contributions to this North Dakota bill. Maybe it is. I don't know enough about their legislative process to refute that. But I'm going to guess it probably isn't, at least to the point that you can figure out which LegCo version first contained these fake minerals, and who submitted that.
  - cxr 9mo ago
    You are conflating "version control" with "the way GitHub/whatever works". (I mean, I guess. That's the only way your comments here make sense.) If someone takes your recommended draft and then records in a ledger somewhere which draft revision(s) you were working with to prepare your draft/proposed changes, and they store copies of all these drafts, then that's version control. It doesn't have to be Git (though, as the other commenter said, there's nothing mentioned so far that's incompatible with it), nor Mercurial, SVN, Perforce, or any other other existing version control system you've heard of, and you wouldn't have to be personally operating any of the clients that actually operate on the VCS's data model.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > If someone takes your recommended draft and then records in a ledger somewhere which draft revision(s) you were working with to prepare your draft/proposed changes, and they store copies of all these drafts, then that's version control I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identified? Let’s go local. I’m right now working on getting Flock Safety out of my community. Part of that involves co-ordinating with members of vulnerable communities. I’m sure as hell not getting all of them to sign their names to a draft measure. Yet every single one of them have added value to the discussion and project. This is the reality of negotiation, coalition building and reconciliation. Some of it is untraced for convenience. Some of it is hidden for corrupt purposes. And some of it is secret to give room for honesty and grace. I have no doubt we could force lawmakers to use version control. I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system. I don’t see that being a step forward. And I don’t see it hampering to any degree the powerful and connected. (You’ve argued this well, by the way, and I think my position has shifted from it’s impossible to it’s impossible without compromising what makes democracy work.)