On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was
>> possible to adopt proposals outside the normal distribution process, and
>> this led to two proposals being ad
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 15:41 Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 19:38 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Currently the FLR uses the proposal title (can't look it up; on mobile);
> > other proposals from the dawn of time and recent days use both ID and
> > title. For that one I recorded it as bot
On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 19:38 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Currently the FLR uses the proposal title (can't look it up; on mobile);
> other proposals from the dawn of time and recent days use both ID and
> title. For that one I recorded it as both the ID and title, which gives
> something to work with
Currently the FLR uses the proposal title (can't look it up; on mobile);
other proposals from the dawn of time and recent days use both ID and
title. For that one I recorded it as both the ID and title, which gives
something to work with, but it will format weird unless I decide to
special-case it.
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 pr
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, 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
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
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin 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 Regulat
1607
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 14:56 Kerim Aydin, 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
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
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 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin 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
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin 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 t
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 17:51 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Finding free numbers sounds awful. I dislike fractional numbers too,
> > since
> > it kind of defeats the purpose of cleaning these numbers in the first
> > place, I think.
>
> I consider a number t
On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 17:51 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Finding free numbers sounds awful. I dislike fractional numbers too,
> since
> it kind of defeats the purpose of cleaning these numbers in the first
> place, I think.
I consider a number that's out of sequence (i.e. the magnitude gives a
very
Finding free numbers sounds awful. I dislike fractional numbers too, since
it kind of defeats the purpose of cleaning these numbers in the first
place, I think.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 02:49 Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 23:43 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 23:43 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was
> > possible to adopt proposals outside the normal distribution process, and
> > this led to two proposals being
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was
> possible to adopt proposals outside the normal distribution process, and
> this led to two proposals being adopted without classic ID numbers: one with
> ID number "01-00
In my work on the rules history, I discovered that around 1999, it was
possible to adopt proposals outside the normal distribution process, and
this led to two proposals being adopted without classic ID numbers: one
with ID number "01-003" and another without an ID number at all. Probably
more were
19 matches
Mail list logo
