Talk:Arguments Opposed to the Resolution

Other topics of note to possibly add:

From Slashdot:

Well, that would be a start, but I still don't think that it obviates the sort of version-control system that the GP is talking about.

Just think: if you were working on a big software or documentation project, would you want your QA process to involve nothing but some guy standing up and reading the source code out loud? No way -- everyone would be asleep or bored to tears (well, unless it was Perl, then they'd probably be waiting for his face to just fall off).

There's a reason that change management is a big issue, in addition to peer review and transparency. In fact, they compliment each other. When you can produce a list of what each person has changed, you have a basis for what you want to concentrate your reviewing efforts on.

Now, change-management isn't a cureall -- anyone in software knows that just because something hasn't changed, doesn't mean it's not buggy. You could change something that causes something that hasn't been changed to break, or you could just discover a bug later; either of those things are possible with laws as well as software. Unless you also have some way of tracking dependencies within the bills (cross references, etc.), it might be possible to "break" the law (make it internally inconsistent) with a minor change somewhere else. So that would still require full readings.

Still, it's ridiculous that there isn't something in place right now, to prevent some staffer from just sneaking language into a bill that's a surefire pass, without anyone noticing until it gets printed up in the Congressional Record.

On the whole, maybe Congress needs to hire some QA people? I mean, it's obvious they have a "client satisfaction" (voters) issue, and that the "deliverables" (laws) really suck ... maybe it's because they're pushing half-baked, half-assed stuff out the door to the "users" (citizens)?

The broad suggestion here is that there are advantages to treating legislative code much like software code, notably the need for quality assurance procedures to ensure that the system doesn't generate "bugs" like this one. Worth integrating into our piece? Not sure, just wanted to flag here.

---

Bridging the Digital Divide

• One way of bridging the divide is to broaden access to the Internet, as has been attempted in Philly and other places.
  • Can this be successful?
  • How? Does Philly (or some part of Philly) present a workable model?
  • Are there certain characteristics, e.g. smaller size, that make this more realistic? Is it better to focus on outlying areas anyhow?
  • Is this even really addressing the digital divide? Does it, as critics suggest, merely subsidize internet access for those with wireless laptops while doing little to help those without?
    • Is conditioning initiatives to address the digital divide on the profitability of the initial program good? Does it suggest that addressing the digital divide was a secondary motivation at best?
  • How does the Philly Wireless case compare with One Laptop Per Child ?
• Another is to make sure that the advantages and efficiency gains obtained from the use of new technology is distributed to everyone, not only those with Internet access
  • e.g. use of cell phones, etc. rather than "traditional" Internet access
  • MiniTel?
  • Developing tools to ensure that e.g. online forms can be printed and distributed via traditional means
    • Or enabling easy transition between online and offline, e.g. scannable forms