Why does a legal amendment not yet adopted a version control system like Git for example? Law basically a text with certain layout and amendment is the same as the change.
That's an interesting question! While I couldn't find any specific information on why legal amendments have not adopted a version control system like Git, there could be several reasons for this. One reason could be that the legal system and its processes are often steeped in tradition and can be slow to change. Additionally, the legal system is complex and involves many different parties, so implementing a new system like Git could be challenging. Another reason could be that the legal system has its own established methods for tracking changes to laws and amendments, and there may not be a perceived need for a version control system like Git. However, this is just speculation on my part. Is there anything else you would like to know? 😊
Source: Conversation with Bing, 06/09/2023
(1) version control - Alternatives to Git? - Stack Overflow.
(2) Git vs GitHub – What is Version Control and How Does it Work?.
(3) Understanding Git-Based Version Control for Industrial Automation.
The idea of using a version control system like Git for legal amendments is interesting and has been proposed in various contexts, but there are several challenges and considerations that have so far limited its widespread adoption in legal systems. Here are some reasons:
Legal language is highly specialized and follows strict conventions. The diffing algorithms used in version control systems may not always capture the subtleties of these changes, and so specialized tools would likely be needed.
Legal changes often need to be approved through a specific process involving multiple parties, such as various branches of government in the case of legislation. This is a lot more involved than simply accepting a pull request.
The law needs to be accessible to everyone, not just those who are familiar with version control systems. This means that even if such a system were used internally, a more accessible interface would need to be provided for the public.
Legal documents often require a strict chain of custody and evidentiary support to be admissible in court. The systems used for legal documents must meet high standards for security and accountability that go beyond what version control systems typically provide.
The legal field is often slow to adopt new technologies, in part because of the high stakes involved, and in part because of institutional resistance to change.
Law is not just about what is explicitly stated in the text but also about interpretation, precedent, and intent, which are not things that can be easily captured in a text-based version control system.
Laws and legal documents are often considered public records that need to be kept in specific ways to be legally admissible. It's not clear that a Git-like system could meet these requirements without significant modification.
In open-source projects managed with Git, the emphasis is on collaboration and community contributions. Legal systems, on the other hand, are often explicitly hierarchical, with changes needing to be approved by a specific authority.
Despite these challenges, there are some initiatives that aim to bring version control to legal documents, but these are mostly in the early stages and have not yet seen widespread adoption.