Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

In some ways the app is easy. Capturing what happens is not, especially if there's no immediate incentive to do so. And writing an app in 2020 doesn't tell you want happened in 1660. Then you have to cope with app longevity; most apps deployed in 2020 will be dead by 2030 while the Houses of Parliament will still be there (unless they burn down due to ongoing fire code issues)

View on HN

Hence having "system/website/app". The system is there to conserve everything and hopefully it will transcend technologies and be easy to migrate the data to whatever comes next.

We have legislation on vellum going back centuries; it's transcended technology and successfully been copied (I wouldn't say actually 'migrated') to other papers and the gov.uk website.

Which is why GP talks about incentive. What technology is your "system/website/app" going to use? Who's incentivised to update it? Who migrates to something else when you abandon it? How much does all this cost compared to non-digital records, which have almost certainly been kept, but some lost due to a lack of incentive to keep them up to date and safe?

Since 2016, UK laws have not been recorded on vellum anymore [0]

[0]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12149181/Thousand-year...

From the government that destroyed all Windrush records, comes another shocking tale of incompetence with malicious undertones.

Laws are written down to make them as permanently-accessible as possible, which acts as defense against capricious rulers. Anything that makes them less permanent is a small blow to the rights of everyday people.

Clearly we should start casting the laws into stainless steel plates.

That would be pretty cool... except it would require non-renewable sources and likely be more CO2-intensive and energy-intensive, so the window of opportunity for that switch has probably come and gone.

I would argue that a law that is so seldemly referenced that all copies are lost ceased to be valid.

But I understand that the British system isn't built that way and instead of creating a consolidated "constitution" rather enjoy the fun of a Speaker citing some old precedent, which nobody can know about. True excitement.

To which precedent to you refer? Most are catalogued in Erskine May.

It seems many people were quite surprised about Bercow taking precedent from 1604, which seems to be from Erksine May.

This precedent certainly doesn't come from vellum, which GP misses.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616

You seem to have confused a couple of things - or else posted the wrong link.

The 'precedent from 1604' was that parliament couldn't be asked to vote twice on the same matter in the same sitting; but that isn't archaic and disused, it's common practice and Bercow (and other members) quoted numerous occasions on which speakers had disallowed votes on its basis.

Your link is about Bercows 'unprecedented ruling' giving MPs more control over the business of the HoC, as opposed to the Government.

I thought that was rejected, and it was voted against (non-binding motion) though it seems they 'backed down' (2017), and now they are recorded on archival paper, and covered in vellum:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/anger-mps-bow-pe...

So, ok, thanks - I take back the 'not actually migrated' part, but I still think it serves as an example of not-technology lasting successfully for a very long time, and the replacement is... a different paper technology!

I suggest stone slabs or clay tablets instead of digital technology.

They found the plans for this in their archive. It had just been forgotten about. People are always finding forgotten treasures in the back rooms of archives, because they're full of ancient stuff and actually getting the right pair of eyeballs to recognize the importance of old stuff is really hard.

Digitizing everything helps, but the enemy is still volume, time, and money, and digitizing costs even more money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com