> On May 25, 2017, at 2:25 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > > How attached is everyone to the current rule numbering scheme? I’ve started > applying proposals on git branches as they are distributed (so I can just > merge them when resolution rolls around), but I realized that this system > will not work if I have to assign sequential ID numbers, as I will not know > which proposals will succeed at the time of distribution. Would people mind > having holes in the rule numbers due to failed proposals? > > Alternatively, because I don’t believe the ruleset specifies that ID numbers > must be integers, I might use start numbering new rules as “7903.1” for the > first rule created by Proposal 7903. > > Gaelan
First, to your direct question: small holes (n=2 or less) aren’t interesting. Rapid rule number inflation is interesting, and objectionable, even if the rule numbers are techincally meaningless. Second: while I don’t think any rule requires you to use whole numbers, I implore you to avoid fractions if at all possible. Fractions, unavoidably, imply grouping, since they mirror section numbers. The grouping of rules in a proposal is of incidental value if the proposal is enacted, and probably should not be recorded for posterity other than through the reports and actions of the Promotor. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
