cooljeanius’s avatarcooljeanius’s Twitter Archive—№ 68,372

                  1. So, since I have some followers who are more from the tech world than they are the politics world, I’m going to do a separate thread on each of these individual LSRs that tries to break things down a bit more from a tech angle: @cooljeanius/1573755873222135815
                1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                  First, note that “LSR” stands for “Legislative Support Request”; an LSR is basically what gets turned into a bill: it’s when a legislator in NH asks our drafting attorneys at OLS (our Office of Legislative Services) to draft a bill for us.
              1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                In other words, none of these have final language yet. They may have LSR numbers, but they’ll be assigned completely separate bill numbers once they become actual bills.
            1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
              So, since they don’t have actual bill numbers yet, that means we don’t have committee assignments or hearing dates yet. Those will most likely get revealed in January, and then the hearings will most likely be later in January, or in February or even March at the latest.
          1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
            I realize this may make things kind of difficult to plan for anyone who might want to travel to NH testify at one of the hearings, but unfortunately that’s the way things work around here: on very short notice.
        1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
          On the other hand, being split up into 7 bills (currently) means that even if you miss the hearings for some of them, you could still try to make it to some of the others.
      1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
        One more thing about the tweet originally quoted at the top of this thread: I mentioned “ED&A”, which stands for “Executive Departments & Administration”, which is the committee that this year’s version of my #SOFTWAREAct (the legislation in question) went before.
    1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
      ED&A didn’t really think they were the right committee to be hearing it, though, so expect this year’s bills to go before other committees instead. A full list of NH House standing committees is available here: gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/standingcommittees.aspx
  1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
    (taking a bit of a break before I get to the actual content of the legislation)
    1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
      for reference, this year’s bill text (that I’ll be splitting up for next year) can be found here: legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1273/id/2462008
      1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
        1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
          1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
            I also tried to amend it while it was still in committee, but I don’t think the committee ever took up the amendment, so I can’t find it in any of the official places… I think this diff comes close to approximating the amendment, though: github.com/cooljeanius/legislation/blob/master/tech/SOFTWARE_Act_billText.aspx.html.diff
            1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
              In any case, the section numbers are the same in all of the previous links to the bill text, so you ought to be able to use any of them to follow along.
              1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                So anyways, on to my recently-filed LSRs: Sections 21-W:2 and 21-W:3 of my previous bill, the parts to prevent noncompetes and NDAs from being used to stifle contributions to FOSS projects, are becoming LSR 2023-0187:
                oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                  Section 21-W:4, preventing the state from requiring you to use proprietary software, is becoming LSR 2023-0188:
                  oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                  1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                    (personally I don’t like the title it’s been given here, as I’m not proposing restrictions on what state agencies use themselves in this one, but rather on what they can require of people to use for legally-required state-person interactions… I’ll see if I can get that fixed…)
                    1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                      Section 21-W:5 of the original, the part to bring #LibreJS-compatibility to state websites, is becoming LSR 2023-0189:
                      oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                      1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                        (again, I don’t like the title it’s been given here either, as I’m not saying state websites can’t use proprietary javascript at all, just that the pages must degrade gracefully if a user wants to disable the proprietary portions via LibreJS or whatever)
                        1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                          Section 21-W:6 of the original, the data portability portion, is becoming LSR 2023-0190, although I’m thinking I might actually withdraw this one and fold it in with one of the other LSRs instead:
                          oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                          1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                            Section 21-W:7, essentially attempting to make New Hampshire a “sanctuary state” for FOSS devs fleeing persecution from overly-litigious proprietary software companies, is becoming LSR 2023-0192:
                            oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                            1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                              LSR 2023-0193 is actually a completely new one that wasn’t in my original legislation this year; in the process of #SOFTWAREAct hearings I learned that we have an information technology council in this state, so this one adds advising about FOSS stuff to its duties:
                              oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                              1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                                Going back to stuff from the original, the portion that would have amended RSA 626:9 to add a right to review source code of software used to generate evidence in criminal proceedings, is becoming LSR 2023-0194:
                                oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
                                1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                                  Finally, let’s note the parts from the original bill that WON’T be returning: I’m removing the study committee to transition all state software to be FOSS, and the purchasing restrictions, as those were the parts that the IT Commissioner objected to most strongly.
                                  1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                                    Hopefully by skipping those portions, we’ll be able to dig more into the parts that got glossed over last time, due to the Commissioner's focus on the software the government uses itself. Anyways, that’s what I’ve got for now; any further updates will be separate tweets/threads.
                                    1. …in reply to @cooljeanius
                                      Actually, one final thing: when I used the acronym “RSA” in this thread, that was a reference to NH’s “Revised Statutes Annotated” (i.e. laws), NOT the Rivest–Shamir–Adleman public-key cryptosystem! #AcronymAmbiguity