4 ms·

This seems like a disgrace. Someone should teach them Git.

JumpCrisscross 12y ago
The legal equivalent is a redline (or blackline).
rwmj 12y ago
I don't know why you were downvoted. Version control would be hugely useful for all lawmakers -- those in parliament/senates too. The UK Parliament actually has a slightly crazy system of using different coloured marker pens to indicate different revisions at different stages (1st reading, 2nd reading, Commons, Lords etc.). They need version control.
- walshemj 12y ago
  This is how they do "cut up" which is producing a document with its amendments/changes - the other old school way is to cut and paste (using scissors and glue) any amendments next to the paragraphs amended - effectively each person maintains there own version of the document they are debating. More modern systems just produce omnibus documents at the start of the day/session which have the amendments and consequentials in one place. Your right parliamentary systems could use a decent electronic system to replace a lot of the paper that is produced - but this would require extra staff working very anti social hours to process everything and put it on the system.
- DennisP 12y ago
  I'm friends with a former state senator, and suggested this to her. She laughed at me and said that's the last thing lawmakers want. They like being able to sneak little bits into bills when no one's looking. She used to start reading bills in the back, because that's where the graft would get thrown in, usually written in some really obscure manner. So to get this to happen I think we would first need some kind of version control so easy and compelling that the general public starts using it everywhere, and then maybe we can build enough public pressure to make the legislators use it. (On the other hand I don't see any reason why judges would be against it for court decisions.)
  - rwmj 12y ago
    Making law is programming. The CPU is a bit fuzzy, but that's about the only difference. We should absolutely make lawmakers use and learn real version control.
- larrys 12y ago
  "I don't know why you were downvoted." Probably because a) it seemed like a joke statement b) didn't go into any detail on how git would solve this particular problem.
  - rev_null 12y ago
    Plus, git would still allow them to rewrite history. Mercurial or perforce would be a better option for solving this problem.
cafard 12y ago
There used to be a healthy business of "loose leaf" publishing, keeping the interested parties up to date on government regulations: page 77.b would go into the binder after pages 77 and 77.a, and 77.b.i would go in behind that. Now, whether these publishers got the updates from the government, or had to dig them out by close reading, I don't remember, or maybe just never knew.

The legal equivalent is a redline (or blackline).

rwmj 12y ago

I don't know why you were downvoted. Version control would be hugely useful for all lawmakers -- those in parliament/senates too. The UK Parliament actually has a slightly crazy system of using different coloured marker pens to indicate different revisions at different stages (1st reading, 2nd reading, Commons, Lords etc.). They need version control.

walshemj 12y ago
This is how they do "cut up" which is producing a document with its amendments/changes - the other old school way is to cut and paste (using scissors and glue) any amendments next to the paragraphs amended - effectively each person maintains there own version of the document they are debating. More modern systems just produce omnibus documents at the start of the day/session which have the amendments and consequentials in one place. Your right parliamentary systems could use a decent electronic system to replace a lot of the paper that is produced - but this would require extra staff working very anti social hours to process everything and put it on the system.
DennisP 12y ago
I'm friends with a former state senator, and suggested this to her. She laughed at me and said that's the last thing lawmakers want. They like being able to sneak little bits into bills when no one's looking. She used to start reading bills in the back, because that's where the graft would get thrown in, usually written in some really obscure manner. So to get this to happen I think we would first need some kind of version control so easy and compelling that the general public starts using it everywhere, and then maybe we can build enough public pressure to make the legislators use it. (On the other hand I don't see any reason why judges would be against it for court decisions.)
- rwmj 12y ago
  Making law is programming. The CPU is a bit fuzzy, but that's about the only difference. We should absolutely make lawmakers use and learn real version control.
larrys 12y ago
"I don't know why you were downvoted." Probably because a) it seemed like a joke statement b) didn't go into any detail on how git would solve this particular problem.
- rev_null 12y ago
  Plus, git would still allow them to rewrite history. Mercurial or perforce would be a better option for solving this problem.

cafard 12y ago

There used to be a healthy business of "loose leaf" publishing, keeping the interested parties up to date on government regulations: page 77.b would go into the binder after pages 77 and 77.a, and 77.b.i would go in behind that. Now, whether these publishers got the updates from the government, or had to dig them out by close reading, I don't remember, or maybe just never knew.