G., o, and Aris have all shared my thoughts on the matter, if you do make that change, then I will consider becoming rulekeepor.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:51 AM, 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. > > >
