root wrote:
All the proposals in question were adopted before ID numbers (proposal
5110), so I believe there would be no invalid rule number assignments.
If 5110 had already taken effect, it could have been quite
problematic; if any rules had been created with invalid ID numbers,
then any subsequent changes to those rules that addressed them by
number would have failed. This would have been the case for rules
2157 and 2158, subsequently amended by proposals 5134 and 5151. See,
this is why strongly regulated ID numbers are bad.
In general, subsequent changes would be successful, as it would be
unambiguous which rule was intended to be amended (especially if the
subsequent proposals referred to them by both number and name).
Proto: More pragmatic ID numbers
Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) by appending this text to section (b):
If an ID number is purportedly assigned to an entity that
is later discovered not to have existed at the time, and
the same or a substantially similar entity is later created,
and that ID number remains unassigned, then that ID number
CAN be assigned to the new entity without objection.
