On 6/4/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > AGAINST, unless the proposer is willing to compile a list of all > > proposal titles ever used to avoid future R1586 clashes. > AAH! > > I retract my vote on Proposal 5538. > I vote AGAINST Proposal 5538. > > Fix coming up.
Actually, since Rule 1586 is only Power=2, this won't break anything if adopted. It will, however, create a conflict between Rule 106 and Rule 1586. I could propose adding language to Rule 106 to define a Proposal's name as "Proposal X", where X is its ID number. This would clear up the situation, and it might be more in the spirit of Rule 1586, but it would add language to the Rules that strictly has no effect. Should I?
