If the rule said that proposals were required to be assigned "names" and not "ID numbers", is there a unique-enough and short name that can identify those?
The main thing for me is, if I see the (for lack of a better term) "identification string" in the FLR and a date, I want to be able (in principle) to go to the mail archives in the right date range and search on the identifier to find the original event. Or where the mail archives don't exist, have a string that points me to the right kind of event. It seems that choosing a number in the current sequence would be very confusing...? (btw, having talked it out now I won't quibble too much past this - I definitely appreciate the effort regardless of the scheme you finalize). On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 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? > > > > > >
