On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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.
Endore G. Thank you for saying this with the force I was unable to. -Aris
