| ▲ | LPisGood 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I started but could not finish a project I was calling “g(overnm)it blame” - the idea was to track each bill through committee and to the end either a sort of commit history to see which legislator (or at least which committee) added what part of the final bill. I found it infeasible, but I’m wondering if you saw rich enough data while making this that you think such a project is viable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jrussino 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maybe I'm too software-engineer-brained now, but to me it seems like lawmakers should just be using a tool like git directly. The legal code is a codebase, every bill is a PR, the arguments and proposed changes are captured in review comments, and the PR is accepted/rejected on a vote. Aside from "lawmakers don't/won't understand the tool", why not do it this way? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||