Finding free numbers sounds awful. I dislike fractional numbers too, since it kind of defeats the purpose of cleaning these numbers in the first place, I think.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 02:49 Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 23:43 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was > > > possible to adopt proposals outside the normal distribution process, > and > > > this led to two proposals being adopted without classic ID numbers: > one with > > > ID number "01-003" and another without an ID number at all. Probably > more > > > were as well, but these are the only two in the modern ruleset's > history. > > > > > > Do you think you could skip two ID numbers so that we could assign > these > > > regular ID numbers by proposal? If anyone has better ideas, especially > for > > > the one that never got an ID number and is only identified by name, I'm > > > interested. I mostly want to clean this up for cleanliness but I guess > it > > > isn't the end of the world if we leaves things as is; it just makes it > > > harder to keep track of them historically. > > > > 7957-7958 will work (I'll try not to forget). Isn't this the kind of > > situation where ratification without objection is appropriate? > > I'd rather use an ID number of similar magnitude to those which were in > general use of the time. If there are no free numbers back then (and > there may well not be), you'd need to use fractions. > > -- > ais523 >
