On Wed, 24 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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.
Thinking about it a little further, I want to give a reason other than a
reflex "we've always done it that way (back to Suberian Nomic), get off my
lawn."
In the last few months, we've had several comments to the effect that our
history (patent titles, cases, etc.) is our most important asset.
To reconstruct missing bits of history (like CFJs or rules), it's important
to know what's missing, so knowing that Rule IDs (and version numbers) are
unique, sequential integers is important to filling in any gaps[1].
Actual organization of the text - there's plenty of room for experiement
there (I wish I'd manage to get branching-tree ideas working myself
last year), so organizational experiments like your latest, I like a lot.
[1 speaking of which, did anyone grab a copy of omd's rules archives before
they disappeared? I think I may have the YAML somewhere if I look].
