Skip to content

ADOPTION.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
175 lines (127 loc) · 8.43 KB

ADOPTION.md

File metadata and controls

175 lines (127 loc) · 8.43 KB
Raw

Adoption — turning /propose/ and /icc/ on

/bills/ is live. It is record, and an empty register is a true statement: no bills are before the board is information, not absence.

/propose/ and /icc/ are built but dark, behind one flag, and they open together. They are action, and an action surface opens when the desk behind it is staffed. The proposer's one actionable instruction is email this file to the ICC. Put that in front of the public before the ICC can receive, and the system's first impression on its first real author is silence. Opening the proposal surface without the clerking desk is the same failure one step later.

Everything below is checked off before it goes live. Then:

PROPOSE_ENABLED=true npm run build     # or set it in the deploy workflow

RESOLVED — the pages were opened on 2026-08-16

Recorded here rather than deleted, because how a gate was passed is part of the record.
1. Receiving address Overridden by Pranay. Narrowed on inspection — see below.
2. ICC coordinator briefed Done, confirmed by Pranay.
3. Announcement to all three bodies Not done. Opened anyway, on Pranay's direction.
4. Human dry run Not done. Opened anyway, on Pranay's direction.

On condition 1, I had it wrong and the record should say so. I reported that the propose page's one instruction "ships broken". It does not, and the reason is structural: /propose/ cannot produce a file without JavaScript — it is an editor — so every reader who can use the page at all has JavaScript, and with JavaScript Cloudflare's own decode script restores mailto:pranay@stmorg.in correctly. Verified against the live domain with a real browser, both ways:

JS ON   href=mailto:pranay@stmorg.in
JS OFF  href=/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7404…      (that URL 404s)

Pranay's framing is the correct one: the proposer downloads a file and mails it from their own client. Nothing has to be sent from the website, so a mail-composer link is a convenience and never the mechanism.

What remains true, and is smaller than condition 1 claimed:

  • For a reader without JavaScript, the contact address is unreadable on every page that carries it — the footer "Contact" link, and the <noscript> note on /propose/ which tells such a reader to write to the ICC. Cloudflare replaces the address text as well as the href, so it cannot be read, let alone clicked. That is a real gap for a site whose premise is that no-JS works, and it is not a blocker on a JavaScript-only page.
  • The verification command below is also wrong as written: run against /propose/ while the page was dark, it measured the 404 page's own footer link and returned 1 for a reason having nothing to do with the propose page.

Both are follow-ups, not conditions. Disabling Email Address Obfuscation for this zone still fixes them in one setting.

1. The receiving address works without JavaScript

This is the one that is currently failing.

Cloudflare's Email Address Obfuscation (Scrape Shield) rewrites mailto: links at the edge into /cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#…, which only resolves once its script has run. The build ships a clean mailto: — npm test asserts that — but the served page does not.

The propose page's single actionable instruction is email this file. Shipping it while the edge breaks that instruction for a reader without JavaScript defeats the page.

One of the following, before the flip:

  • Disable Email Address Obfuscation — Cloudflare dashboard → the zone → Scrape Shield. A narrower option is a Configuration Rule disabling it for constitution.stmorg.in only.
  • Point the instruction at a contact page instead of a raw address. Replace info.contact.email with info.contact.url in constitution/current.yaml; the page follows.

Verify:

curl -sS "https://constitution.stmorg.in/propose/?cb=$(date +%s)" \
  | grep -c "cdn-cgi/l/email-protection"     # must be 0
  • Overridden by Pranay, 2026-08-16, on the ground that the proposer mails the ICC from their own client and nothing is sent from the website. See the resolution above for what this does and does not leave broken.

Note the command is only meaningful once the page is LIVE — run against a dark /propose/ it measures the 404 page's footer instead.

Background: .night-run/CUTOVER.md, item 0.

2. The ICC coordinator is briefed

Not a document — a conversation. It covers:

  • The lifecycle: draft → submitted → under-review → scheduled → approved → enacted → applied, and that the ICC owns numbering, scheduling and attestation but never approval.

  • The freeze point: form review completes before any meeting is scheduled. Circulation is the freeze.

  • The resolution sentence and the hash. bill validate prints it; the presiding officer reads it into the minutes, hash and all. A vote binds to that hash. Edit the bill afterwards and the approvals are void — including when the bill's own operations were untouched.

  • The ballot sheets: one pre-filled sheet per body, so nobody composes a legal record from scratch and the hash cannot be mistyped. bill ballot writes them, and so does the download on /icc/ — the same renderer, the same sheets.

  • The desk itself: walk /icc/ once, top to bottom. It is the whole job on one page, and it writes the record rather than leaving anyone to compose one.

  • Who runs bill validate — the ICC, or the technical department. Decide it; do not leave it ambiguous.

  • Briefed. Confirmed by Pranay, 2026-08-16.

3. One announcement, to all three bodies

To the board, the intermediate board and unit heads, together.

Article 16(3) convenes all three for any bill. None of them should first hear that this process exists when they are summoned to vote under it.

It needs to say only: amendments are now proposed as bills, all three bodies vote on every one, and here is where to read about it — link process/PROPOSING.md and process/AMENDMENT-PROCESS.md.

  • Not sent. The pages were opened before this. Article 16(3) convenes all three bodies for any bill, and none of them should first hear that this process exists when they are summoned to vote under it. Still outstanding.

4. One human dry run

The ICC processes a fixture bill end to end, in a sandbox, before a real one arrives:

cp examples/starter/bills/fixture-bill.yaml /tmp/dry-run.yaml
npx opencodelaw bill validate /tmp/dry-run.yaml     # read the diff and the hash
npx opencodelaw bill ballot   /tmp/dry-run.yaml     # print the three sheets
# fill the sheets by hand as mock minutes; archive them; record the tallies
npx opencodelaw act enact /tmp/dry-run.yaml --signed-pdf <the scan>
npx opencodelaw act apply /tmp/dry-run.yaml         # against a COPY of the fixture constitution

The fixture lifecycle already exists as a test. This is the same lifecycle as rehearsal — so the first real bill is not the first time a human touches the tools.

Do it against examples/starter/fixture-constitution.yaml, never constitution/current.yaml.

  • Not done. The pages were opened before this. The first real bill will therefore be the first time a human touches the tools. Still outstanding.

When all four are checked

  1. Set PROPOSE_ENABLED: 'true' in .github/workflows/deploy.yml. Both pages open together.
  2. Merge; wait for the deploy, and allow ten minutes for the edge cache.
  3. Run the end-to-end suites against the live pages — including hash parity between the live page and the CLI, which is the check that caught the trailing-newline defect.
  4. Announce that it is open.

A note for whoever reads this later

While the two pages are dark, authoring a bill by hand is fully supported and produces exactly the same file: copy bills/TEMPLATE.yaml, edit it, run npx opencodelaw bill validate. See process/AUTHORING-BY-HAND.md. The pages are convenience, not gatekeeping — the editor exists so an author cannot accidentally propose a half-described change, and the desk so nobody composes a legal record from scratch. Neither holds any authority: act enact re-derives every claim they make.

The tripwire's zero-permitted era ends the day the first real Act applies. From then on the Act's manifest is the permission, which is what all of this was built for. A legitimate first diff under an Act is not a breach.