Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled "ID Numbers" with this text:
Can someone explain, and use small words so I'm sure to understand,
precisely why a system that has worked very well for a very long
time needs a new, long, rule? The current system will have the
occasional glitch that requires a CFJ, but I'm guessing the rule would,
too.
1) Rule numbers are re-used often enough to justify legislated
precision. I don't think you're arguing against this.
2) CFJ numbers worked well because the CotC's method of
announcing judicial activity was to copy+paste it from the
database, thus producing a single message with the CFJ's
number and text and other significant attributes. This
method is less convenient now that the holder of CotC and
the maintainer of the database are different persons, hence
Eris was evidently unsure that those persons were necessarily
using the same numbers.
3) If we're going to generalize the methodology of rule numbers
to CFJ numbers, then we may as well throw in numbers for
distributed proposals as well.
4) Who says we have to /need/ it? If we want it, isn't that enough?
