On Wed, 24 May 2017, Gaelan Steele 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.
After 20-some years? Very very very very very very attached. Especially if it is breaking one of the oldest Agoran tradition and recordkeeping devices for the convenience of a particular technology.
