"Living document" could be a problem for signatories and translations

[fvsch]

Hi. First, thanks for this effort.

I’m wondering about this sentence on the main postmeritocracy.org page:

This is a living document. You can contribute on GitHub.

Does this mean that the text of the manifesto might change, beyond cosmetic changes? Any substantial change can create issues such as:

1. Signatories signed at a given time, and may object to an added or changed paragraph.
2. Translations will get outdated.

Is there a will to keep the manifesto as-is, and only evolve the content around it? If substantial changes happen, should they be versioned, and signatories associated with the latest published version at the time they signed (with this information shown on the website)?

[CoralineAda]

This point was raised by someone else, too. I will change it. The text of the manifesto will only change in minor ways (minor copyediting) to ensure that the content doesn’t change under the people who signed it.

Thanks!

[aschrijver]

Maybe you could take an example from the Programmer's Oath. Here signatories use a git commit to sign the Manifesto, so you sign against a particular version with that and there are no problems when changes occur afterwards.

Also, IMHO, it is much better than providing a Google Forms entry. Google is not all that ethical and Forms means the data you enter is tracked/harvested by Google. Note also that you probably do not comply to GDPR (EU privacy regulation) this way.