[eru]

> I would love to see more governments operate on a Git-first basis, so that each and every decision/contribution can be tracked online for transparency.

Alas, that sounds like a great idea in principle, but is probably a bad idea in practice.

Speeches in parliament (or on the senate floor, in the US) are already public. And that's a big reason those speeches are useless: they are just used as grandstanding to the general public.

The real work in finding compromises happens behind closed doors. That way you avoid producing sound bytes that can be used against you next election season. Especially from challengers in your own party, who could otherwise accuse you of being insufficiently pure.

[scroblart]

yeah transparency is bad news, the real problem is voters demands for purity from their politicians

[eru]

No transparency at all is also bad.

I'm afraid an ugly compromise of muddling through with some transparency is the best we can get in practice. At least if your democracy features voting, and especially first-past-the-post voting.

As one alternative, filling your parliament up via sortition might eliminate the downsides of transparency.