Goethe wrote:
I'd suggest the following record for R105:
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Renumbered after Repeal from XXXX to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy)
Amended(3) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy)
This is just a suggestion, not so much from the database as from the
historical angle... in the name of concisely presevering the history of
R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for
that history going back to an initial rule to be lost.
I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any
historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original*
number,
rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there.
I'm concerned with linking whatever is the "current" ruleset to
its history. From that perspective, the "history" of R105 is a line
back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the
substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous
repeal. Following that as the brief history of RXXXX is not so
illuminating (and certainly doesn't document the scam). There
is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already
renumbered once!
Proto: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Rulekeepor shall
annotate Rule 105 with <history of the previous Rule 105>.
