On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:18:38AM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I'm considering a motion to reconsider this case, and would like comments.
>
> Reasons: ID Numbers are nowhere explicitly defined. So what's an ID
> number? It's a number used to ID a rule. Once a SLR has been published a
> few times, it's clear that there's only one number that identifies a
> particular rule. Even if a rulekeepor hasn't assigned a rule ID, a
> statement "amend Rule XXXX" would meet R105's "Any ambiguity in the
> specification of a rule change" clause, as long as SLRs around the time of
> the change have listed the number and nobody's questioned it. Therefore,
> those "unassigned by the rulekeepor" numbers are still numbers that ID a
> proposal, and meet the common definition of ID numbers.
>
> Without citing this a strict precedent, CFJ 1358 has a similar principle,
> that the "name" of something, if not strictly set, can be what we in
> common law come to call something, if there's strong evident consensus on
> that.
>
> Further, except in rare circumstances, the process is entirely
> deterministic. Anyone can look at a proposal and the current SLR and
> *know* what the next number would be by common convention, before the
> rulekeepor acts. If the rulekeepor can't officially "assign" a number, e
> can still in a practical sense confirm the convention by publishing an SLR
> with a new number to confirm our common law consensus. This actually is a
> better regulation of rule numbers. If the rulekeepor attempts to deviate
> from the known pattern, it doesn't reach consensus/ambiguity standards and
> fails.
>
> This implies that ID numbers can't be set by the rulekeepor not because
> they don't exist, but because they're predetermined by common law (except
> in rare cases) and the rulekeepor can't affect that.
>
> This would lead to TRUE when asking whether a specific rule ID (that came
> about in the expected sequence) worked, but FALSE when asking whether it
> was assigned by the rulekeepor.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Are you saying:
1. We have conventions about how rule ID numbers are determined.
2. The following sentence:
Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
does two things: it says rules have distinct ID numbers, and also
says the Rulekeepor's supposed to assign them.
3. The Rulekeepor can't actually assign them, so the second part
doesn't work, but that doesn't mean rules don't have ID numbers.
I'm not sure. The sentence could easily be interpreted as saying ID
numbers are exactly those which are assigned by the Rulekeepor (subject
to the restrictions in the sentence). That would mean if the Rulekeepor
hasn't assigned an ID number to a rule, the rule doesn't have one
(yet).
I find the topic confusing. I guess it is probably worth reconsidering.
--
Falsifian
