G. wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote:
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
(I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)
CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was a more recent precedent that a
proposal's name is not the same thing as its title, but I can't find
it.
The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define
or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to
submit with the "associated title", so arguably that's a legislative
override of 1358, and the submitted title is the true title
nowadays. And saying "name != title" is a bit of a stretch; pretty
much synonymous for a body of text (and may break other things to
say it isn't). So the question is, does the more recent precedent
deal with that added bit? -G.
Regardless of whether proposals without titles are allowed, I think
"name includes number" still makes sense. The point of requiring
unique names is to guarantee that a form of unambiguous reference
exists; turning that around, if one existing form serves that purpose
better than another, then that's a good reason to consider interpreting
the former as part of the name. For proposals, numbers serve that
purpose better than titles; the assignment of a duplicate number will
be declared ineffective in short order, whereas a title may duplicate
one from years earlier (especially if it's something generic like "Fix
Elections") without anyone noticing.
