root wrote:
On 10/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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).
If that's true, then the system is useless. We can just commonly
refer to any of the rules using whatever number or label we want, and
the regulation adds nothing but bureaucracy.
That could be argued about a lot of things.
Proto-proto: Change the higher-than-previous from CAN to SHALL, but
change precedence from lowest ID number to earliest date of creation,
and require a sufficiently informative annotation for rules that broke
the higher-than-previous requirement.
