
White House Source Code Policy a Big Win for Open Government - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/white-house-source-code-policy-big-win-open-government
======
britta
I'd encourage you all to read the draft source code policy
([https://sourcecode.cio.gov/](https://sourcecode.cio.gov/)) and consider
commenting on it or responding to existing comments yourself (due by Monday
night at midnight Eastern U.S. time): [https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-
code-policy/issues](https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues)

This is an unusually direct opportunity to share your expertise to help the
entire U.S. federal government do a better job of building software.

------
bpchaps
This is a great step in the right direction!

I did a request for Chicago's $100M ticketing system's code - written by IBM -
and they're acting very, very slowly to further respond. More so than usual.
Hopefully this sort of work helps out :). I feel like I should probably
contact EFF after seeing this..

~~~
Dowwie
What particular project are you referring to? That's an awfully large
contract. I'd like to know what the outcome is of your work.

~~~
bpchaps
It's called CANVAS. I saw some very interesting things in that contract - for
example, 20M of that included a subcontract for paper. It's relatively
understandable, but it's pretty clear that someone at an obscure, difficult to
research company got a very pretty penny for it.

And gladly - I'll try to keep you updated.

------
alexc05
I wonder if it is going to wind up applying to voting machines or if they're
somehow going to be "loopholed"

I'd prefer that those machines could have their code audited.

~~~
djKianoosh
Likely not. In this country the states run the elections, not the federal
government.

If you want this in your state, push them (that is, your state senators and
state legislature) to adopt a similar policy at the state level.

------
studentrob
This is a proposed policy. The original title is a little misleading.

Good to see the government considering steps like this. Still, the system
needs a major upgrade of tech understanding if we're to really introduce
better tech within government. We can begin by electing people who understand
technology.

------
V-2
Coding convention for WhiteHouse Android app is abysmal ;)

[https://github.com/WhiteHouse/wh-app-
android/blob/master/app...](https://github.com/WhiteHouse/wh-app-
android/blob/master/app/src/main/java/gov/whitehouse/app/BaseActivity.java)

    
    
        public
        boolean checkNetworkElseFail()
        {
    
        public
        Tracker getTracker()
        {
    

etc. Who does that?? And that's despite the fact that

" _Contributers_ [sic] _are expected to adhere to the official Android Code
Style Guidelines._ " ;)

~~~
tyingq
>>Who does that?

You mean the indentation style? The K&R vs ANSI/Allman thing?

That argument started well before java, and continues. I would guess you're
seeing it there because whoever wrote it had previously been a C++ developer.
Inertia. GNU's classpath, for example, is indented this way...same thing,
inertia. Easy enough to batch reformat though.

~~~
V-2
I was referring to putting visibility modifier in its own line.

~~~
arfar
It's handy if you're looking for the methods definition using a regex. Instead
of doing something like (in pseudo-regex):

    
    
        $[public|private|whatever-else-can-behere](FUNCTION_YOURE_LOOKING_FOR)
    

you can do a slightly simpler

    
    
        $(FUNCTION_YOURE_LOOKING_FOR)
    

Obviously your code editor/IDE should handle that, but maybe if you wanted to
whip up a quick script to something a little odd, it'd be quite handy to have
the function name on a separate line.

~~~
V-2
Well, that's the first time I see such convention. And your argument doesn't
quite hold water to me. They put the visibility modifier in its own line, not
the function name. It's still next to the return type (or void). So it would
still beat your regex. Plus, I'm not exactly sure if any Android devs snap out
little regex-based scripts for refactoring or whatnot :) I'm sure it's far
from unusual in dynamic languages, but looks like a great YAGNI in this case.
I'm not hating it, all I'm saying is it's odd :)

~~~
arfar
You're completely right, it's odd. Also I didn't realise that the return type
was also on the same line as the function name, in which case, even more odd.

I think the idea dates back to early C. I've definitely seen C code with the
return type on a separate line.

