That's fair. This doesn't really resolve how to deal with proposals that are missing them altogether though
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 1607 > > Ah that was somehow missing from one of PSS's recent rulesets, I see > e fixed that right afterwards. > > Under that, ID Numbers were first defined in Rule 2161 (2 August 2007) so > there's no guarantee that any proposal before that officially has one. > > I *will* point out that (in terms of common definitions), if I were working > in a stockroom, and I asked someone "hey, what's that product ID number" > and > they said "013-J/X-5593" I would accept that as the "ID number" without > worrying about it. So if we allow "standard progression" numbers before > 2007 to be grandfathered in by common definition, I don't see how that > precludes "unusual" identifiers. > > > > 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? > > > > >
