On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> There's quite a few entries that "correctly" depart from the proposal > pattern from the elder days (e.g. apparently "rule 750" was responsible > for a lot of modifications, and back then also rule numbers changed > with amendments). > > It seems that a special entry is appropriate, hopefully a descriptive > term of where/when it happened. > > As a recent example: there are some rule changes that you know well > Alexis were done "by Decree". I think it's far better to be descriptive - > it's better to say something happened "by Decree" than make up a > proposal number, and there's nothing dishonest in saying "changed by > an unnumbered proposal on (date)" and the (date) would lead us to the > right point in the archives. > > -G. > I agree that, in general, we shouldn't assume all rule changes have to act by proposal since that's very much not true, but in these cases these were very much by proposal. I know that the one without a number was adopted without objection, so it was never distributed (if it had been, I'd ask the Promotor to simply assign it an ID number, since that is eir duty), but I haven't had the time to look at how proposal 01-003 came about. Though, if it was distributed, one could argue that 01-003 is not an ID number and therefore Aris should assign it one.
