Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#11

Post by Rotten194 »

adiian wrote: post #10

On one side it makes sense to have a public repository like git used for this, but having a private company being responsible for this it's bit strange. The fact that a pull request was accepted was now that strange because it could have been done by the council representative. For this kind of use case it would make more sense to me some sort of block chain, not controlled by a single company. "This isn’t a copy of…

Why would you use a blockchain? There's already a central authority - the DC city government. They should just host their own git instance.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#12

Post by Klathmon »

adiian wrote: post #10

On one side it makes sense to have a public repository like git used for this, but having a private company being responsible for this it's bit strange. The fact that a pull request was accepted was now that strange because it could have been done by the council representative. For this kind of use case it would make more sense to me some sort of block chain, not controlled by a single company. "This isn’t a copy of…

To be fair, I don't think anyone believes that this is the one and only source of the law in all forms. As in if GitHub suddenly started changing it on their own, we wouldn't all throw up our arms and resign to our new GitHub overlords.

It would be treated no differently than someone else trying to tamper with the written law in any form.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#13

Post by nulbyte »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #4

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 Exe…

> 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..."

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#14

Post by conquistadog »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

> My edit wasn’t substantive. This sort of “technical correction,” as lawyers would call it, didn’t need to be passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor. Okay, so they didn't "change the law." It's a cool story but not a fan of clickbait titles either.

A fix is indeed a change, even if minor.

To be fair, my own distaste for clickbait is palpable here. But I think I can suspend it in light of the importance of this article's bigger point.

I've always thought this sounded like a good idea, and to see it actually happening is pretty amazing. Here's hoping it catches on.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#15

Post by Klathmon »

This is such a great way of making access to the law more open and welcoming, which is a great thing to me!

I haven't been able to check yet, but does anyone know if you are allowed to use this process to propose new laws or clarifications of laws more substantial than simple typo fixes?

Sure, you aren't going to have non-lawyers crafting legislation, but could this be used to bring up clarifications that could impact rulings or increase/decrease scope of current laws or something similar? (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what are big and what are small changes here)

Imagine if proposed laws could be commented on, have changes offered, debated, and ultimately decided on in an open fashion like this! With a public "audit trail" of sorts showing the history of changes the law went through.

I know this is optimistic, but I wholeheartedly believe that more openness and more people involved will ultimately lead to better laws.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#16

Post by misterhtmlcss »

Rotten194 wrote: post #11
adiian wrote: post #10

On one side it makes sense to have a public repository like git used for this, but having a private company being responsible for this it's bit strange. The fact that a pull request was accepted was now that strange because it could have been done by the council representative. For this kind of use case it would make more sense to me some sort of block chain, not controlled by a single company. "This isn’t a copy of…

Why would you use a blockchain? There's already a central authority - the DC city government. They should just host their own git instance.

I'm willing to bet GH is being mirrored internally as you suggest otherwise you'd be exposing the only current digital copy to hackers. That just seems a reasonable expectation to me.

So the activity is likely happening on the larger and more exposed GH service, while internally there is a daily copy bring backed up that isn't (as) exposed to hackers.

Something life that would be a great way to displace risk.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#17

Post by CodeWriter23 »

nulbyte wrote: post #13
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #4

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 Exe…

> 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..."

Perhaps 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.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#18

Post by CodeWriter23 »

jcranmer wrote: post #5
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #4

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 Exe…

Judging from screenshots, the person who accepted the change was on the DC City Council.

Still, not the Mayor. And, did it unilaterally, inviting abuse.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#19

Post by CodeWriter23 »

craftyguy wrote: post #7
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #4

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 Exe…

No law was changed. The title is straight up clickbait.

Actually, it was changed. A reference from "Subchapter I" was changed to "Subchapter II", under the authority of the single lawyer that reviewed it.

Re: How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request

#20

Post by CodeWriter23 »

alistairSH wrote: post #8
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #4

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 Exe…

There was a review performed via pull request. In this case,a small typo was corrected - no further action required.

Yes, 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.
Post reply on HN