4 ms·

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

by cxr 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.)
    - cxr 10mo ago
      > 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? It wouldn't hurt, but it also wouldn't be necessary. > 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. "Added value" is not the same as being the author of a draft that gets merged (in whole or in part, and with or without edits by the person who's integrating it). > I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system. I don't know what that means. As I said before, if you send your draft (or just the parts that you wish to "patch", i.e. a suggested change) to a public official (no matter what form, e.g. an email, even) who then chooses to integrate your suggestion, and they record both the provenance of the revision and what precisely is being revised, then that would satisfy the conditions of what constitutes version control. > You’ve argued this well I don't think so. I see this subthread as being tedious and unnecessary, and there's nothing particularly insightful in the things I've written here. It should have ended with the first commenter who explained that nothing about any of this is incompatible with version control, but it sounds—not just based on the remarks here, but similarly timed comments elsewhere—that you still don't grok what that really means.
- vintermann 10mo ago
  > Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git Maybe that workflow is something we want to change. Either way, if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully, I'm prepared to create a git login.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully Literally start with calling your representative. > I'm prepared to create a git login Easy to say if you’re in society’s mainstream. A lot harder for other folks. Right now, I’d be worried about Government Git being trawled for anyone who did anything the administration finds objectionable.
  - cxr 10mo ago
    What's a "git login"?

by cxr 10mo ago

JumpCrisscross 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.)
  - cxr 10mo ago
    > 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? It wouldn't hurt, but it also wouldn't be necessary. > 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. "Added value" is not the same as being the author of a draft that gets merged (in whole or in part, and with or without edits by the person who's integrating it). > I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system. I don't know what that means. As I said before, if you send your draft (or just the parts that you wish to "patch", i.e. a suggested change) to a public official (no matter what form, e.g. an email, even) who then chooses to integrate your suggestion, and they record both the provenance of the revision and what precisely is being revised, then that would satisfy the conditions of what constitutes version control. > You’ve argued this well I don't think so. I see this subthread as being tedious and unnecessary, and there's nothing particularly insightful in the things I've written here. It should have ended with the first commenter who explained that nothing about any of this is incompatible with version control, but it sounds—not just based on the remarks here, but similarly timed comments elsewhere—that you still don't grok what that really means.
vintermann 10mo ago
> Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git Maybe that workflow is something we want to change. Either way, if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully, I'm prepared to create a git login.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully Literally start with calling your representative. > I'm prepared to create a git login Easy to say if you’re in society’s mainstream. A lot harder for other folks. Right now, I’d be worried about Government Git being trawled for anyone who did anything the administration finds objectionable.
- cxr 10mo ago
  What's a "git login"?