1607 On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 14:56 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > The only place I see ID numbers for Proposals at all, in the current > ruleset, > is in R107, it's used as an example of a way to refer to the matter to be > decided in a Decision. Today's Ruleset only mentions/defines ID numbers > for > Rules and Regulations, not at all for Proposals or CFJs (unless I'm missing > something!) > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > Hmm, but then doesn't that mean that Aris has to assign ID numbers to > all the old > > proposals that didn't have them, assuming they were distributed? > > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:39 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > 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. > > > > ID numbers weren't a defined thing back then, and forcing things > into that scheme > > is destructive of history IMO. > > > > In 2002, before ID numbers were ever explicitly defined, I judged > CFJ 1358 for > > which identifying the "name" of a proposal was important. The > "name" was found to > > be different than the "title", and I found that the "name" of the > proposal was the > > same as what we now call ID number - whatever identifier we > primarily use for > > identifying the proposal (e.g. when voting or entering into the > FLR). I don't > > think the rules in 1999 were different in that respect. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1358 > > > > Therefore I think it's consistent whatever was used as the "name" > from that time > > (e.g. 01-003) as the official proposal identifier, without forcing > the "name" to > > fit a particular scheme (except maybe for length choosing a > shortened "nickname"). > > It is *not* consistent to assume that ID numbers then worked as > now, and forcing > > these things to be integers would definitely lose my support. > > > > (I had to deal with special coding for CFJ appeals/moots so > appreciate the > > difficulty with exceptions from numerical sequences...) > > > > -G. > > > > > > > > > > >
