2

  1. Should future democratic political systems effectively use publicly accessible version control systems, such as, (or similar to), git/Github? Legislation, laws, etc., would exist in a public repository with precise details such as:

    • a history of all changes
    • the various members that 'committed' the changes

  2. Should such a repository include a feature to enable members of the public to comment and raise issues online, (i.e. publicly, in a somewhat standardized format, cross referenced to the laws in question), similar to a bug tracking system?

  3. (Optional). Should anyone be allowed to issue pull requests, or just representatives?

  4. If not, why would a legislative VCS be ineffective or undemocratic?

EDIT 2018-11-28

Github has been adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia to not only include their web services, but also an XML version of their law!

Related:

vapurrmaid
  • 137
  • 6
  • 2
    A question asking whether policy should be implemented is almost always going to be opinion based, and I don't see how this one is any different. – Publius Jan 09 '18 at 04:13
  • @Avi could it be altered then to reflect something less opinionated? The core components are: are software methodologies being considered/researched in political fields and is this proposed model democratic – vapurrmaid Jan 09 '18 at 04:18
  • If you speak French you might find this repo and this other repo interesting. The first is an experiment to put the civil code and its evolution in diff format. The other was a short-lived participatory experiment if memory serves. (Or maybe it's still ongoing, I haven't followed it.) – Denis de Bernardy Jan 09 '18 at 08:01
  • Readers unfamiliar with VCSes would benefit if the Q. clarified that both the data (public domain) and the software (GPL, and the like) used to access the data are (and would be) freely distributable. Thus both data and software might be run on any recent PC, and updated periodically similar to the way any Linux distro is updated. (Or accessed via any number of competing websites and servers.) – agc Jan 09 '18 at 13:19
  • 1
    Latvia has all the current national legislation online in a freely accessible portal. It includes previous versions (since the start of online service) as well. The law is that all national and municipal legislation must be online and freely accessible. However, the rest of the points of your question are not done via Internet. – Gnudiff Jan 09 '18 at 21:37
  • in many ways the question wasn't asked in the best way. I'm trying to ask if a repository model could replace the way we use representatives – vapurrmaid Jan 10 '18 at 17:28
  • @vapurrmaid are you asking if legislation should be written by anyone/everyone? That'd be an entirely different question. –  Jan 10 '18 at 17:34
  • 1
    @blip not quite. I'm asking if there should be a publically accessible repository of legislature. Members can raise issues or comments in some manner (like github but more tailored to this domain). I'm trying to discern if members having direct contact with legislature is useful or undemocratic as opposed to contacting representatives/voting for representatives. There would still need to be a role for representatives (voting over a merge for example) – vapurrmaid Jan 10 '18 at 17:53
  • @blip anyone could raise issues, comments, propose changes but only repository owners can vote on/commit changes. I'm not trying to suggest using github out of the box but rather a similar system tailored to politics. The question addresses a few main concerns: 1) is there something about democracy being improperly addressed in this model and 2) what kind of technological concerns/research are being addressed to improve the political system – vapurrmaid Jan 10 '18 at 17:59
  • @vapurrmaid Maybe you are looking for a software like Liquid Feedback? – Philipp Jan 13 '18 at 11:13

1 Answers1

7

Should future democratic political system effectively use publicly accessible version control (git/Github)? Legislation, laws etc would exist in a public repository with precise details such as:

a history of all changes the various members that 'committed' the changes

This exists in every democratic political system of which I am aware, although not always on the Internet. Usually this is kept in paper books in law libraries. It is called legislative history. Some jurisdictions have commercial services (e.g. Westlaw) that convert this legislative history into an online format for a fee.

Should public members be able to comment and/or raise issues?

All democratic systems of which I am aware allow members of the public to comment on legislative history and raise issues, although generally this is done in different media than those in which legislative history is maintained. Letters to the editor and political advertisements are two of the most common ways to do so, political blogs are another.

Would anyone or representatives issue pull requests? If not, why would this be ineffective or undemocratic?

I have no idea what this means.

ohwilleke
  • 79,130
  • 11
  • 224
  • 303
  • 1
    Pull requests: With git/github, you take a work (repository) and make a copy of it, and perform changes on your copy. You have the option to bundle some of these changes and issue a "pull request" to the original repository, where the owners may chose to apply those changes to their own copy or discard it. And yes, it makes little sense in a political/legal context; it works for IT because you can (should) have automated tests that make easy to check that the change does not break anything, but those test do not exist for laws... – SJuan76 Jan 09 '18 at 08:56
  • 3
    What @SJuan76 describes actually happens. Lobbyists often write law proposals for politicians which they might then propose to the parliament, with or without changes. – Philipp Jan 09 '18 at 09:50
  • 1
    This doesn't answer the question, (about using GPL free online database style tools that simplify oversight and reduce costs), rather it answer a different stupider question, (something like "are there public records of laws?"). Paywall vendors like Westlaw are not "publicly accessible" in the sense this question addresses, (for context, see also this geeklawblog pricing survey from 2010), since most of the public would need to borrow money to afford Westlaw's prices. – agc Jan 09 '18 at 13:08
  • @agc The paper versions of publicly available in public repositories such as law libraries of courts. The electronic versions are sometimes publicly available and sometimes not. Govt has lots of demands for money, this isn't necessarily the most urgent. – ohwilleke Jan 10 '18 at 02:05
  • @SJuan76 Knowing that "pull requests" can be made by or through elected legislators and and approved if the legislative process (including the legislative body itself) approves them. This is widely considered democratic. Some states also have "initiatives" which allow private individuals to make "pull requests" if they have enough petitioners backing them, which are approved if voters vote for them. – ohwilleke Jan 10 '18 at 02:07
  • 2
    It would, of course, be horrible if anybody could change the laws that are binding on everyone in society, at any time, a la Wikipedia. – ohwilleke Jan 10 '18 at 02:08
  • @ohwilleke, Re "lots of demands for money": given that the data and software both are already free, it'd be cheap to implement, (or even free, if servers were implemented with donations and volunteer effort), and might promptly save the state money. Example: drafting and amending legislation can entail tedious and expensive legal research, the costs of which might be greatly reduced by such a system. – agc Jan 10 '18 at 05:31
  • 3
    But as I understand the OP POV, once a "pull request" is accepted, it becomes law (because it would become part of the "official" repository). So, no opportunity to include ammends to the laws during the legislative process. The whole premise really looks like a solution looking for a problem to solve, or the classical "if I have a hammer then everything looks like a nail". Not to mention that the "solution" is using a tool that the OP knows how to use but that the 99.999% of the population has not even heard about it. – SJuan76 Jan 10 '18 at 08:55
  • @SJuan76, Re "the whole premise": sweepingly incorrect. It's a four part question, and while part 3 depends on parts 1 and 2... parts 1 and 2 might be useful in of themselves and certainly do not depend on part 3. Everything man-made is new and unfamiliar at some point; to object to a proposed innovation because it is new is tantamount to prejudice against all innovation. (FWIW: I wouldn't advocate part 3 either.) – agc Jan 10 '18 at 15:37
  • 1
    @agc the cost of implementing software infrastructures is only partially related to the cost of the software itself. –  Jan 10 '18 at 16:03
  • @ohwilleke it would definitely be horribly if anyone could change laws. The question touched upon (as well as your answer) how members of a system raise issues/concerns. In a repository model, members of the public can leave comments on everything that's pending or prior written. Members can issue pull requests that show, diff syntax highlighting exactly what they want changed. In many ways I'm asking if this should be effectively considered for a future democratic political system or perhaps if there is something about a repository model that's undemocratic. – vapurrmaid Jan 10 '18 at 18:11
  • One of the main concerns of the post (I apologize for the way in which it was asked) is how representatives are used in most systems to filter issues and concerns. With a repository a member of the public can directly highlight their concern in some manner and the proposal can be addressed. Perhaps this isn't feasible though as @agc pointed out part 1 could be considered in isolation – vapurrmaid Jan 10 '18 at 18:14
  • @vapurrmaid "With a repository a member of the public can directly highlight their concern in some manner and the proposal can be addressed" This indicates a very shallow understanding of the legislative process. Members of the public routinely highlight their concerns about the laws (although usually only legislators and lobbyists and lawyers are able to know at a textual level how to address them), and a lack of awareness of proposals being made by people who want to change the laws is almost never a reason that the legislature doesn't act. – ohwilleke Jan 10 '18 at 20:18
  • @ohwilleke, Re "lack of awareness... doesn't act": that text is ambiguous. Who is unaware of what? Are legislators distinct from "people who want to change the laws"? What's that got to do with version control software? – agc Jan 11 '18 at 21:04
  • @ohwilleke - you may find this interesting: https://github.com/DCCouncil/dc-law-xml – vapurrmaid Nov 28 '18 at 21:50