Kerim Aydin wrote: > Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created, >"amending" had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the >instant before)
Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that was under its own auspices, which said "A proposal ... can ... modify the ... text of a rule." much as the old one did. (Neither actually uses the word "amend": they say "modify" instead.) Continuity of definition was maintained throughout. >Remember the command was all one "amendment": Actually, I interpreted all versions of the "Rule Changes" rules as only permitting one of the aspects of a rule (power, title, text, or (under 2131/0) number) to change as a single rule change. Therefore I interpreted that part of the proposal as a sequence of four rule changes. This is consistent with the previous interpretation of rule 105, as revealed by the historical annotations to the rules. >I'd suggest the following record for R105: > >History: >Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 That would not be true. Initial Immutable Rule 105 has been repealed; it is no longer a rule. The present Rule 105 was created on 2007-02-12 by Proposal 4894. >presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for >that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. That's a matter for historical record. Chuck used to maintain a Historical Ruleset, which recorded repealed rules and (I think) superseded versions of rules. That kind of document, which it might be good to compile once more, is the place for the history of Initial Immutable Rule 105. >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. The historical annotations have never reflected the motion of text from one rule to another, which has happened many times. >is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already >renumbered once! The R1295 renumberings are a very different matter. Early on, any amendment to a rule changed its number to the number of the amending proposal. After the rules were changed so that rules retained their number across amendment, R1295 renumbered several rules back to numbers they had previously had. This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here. -zefram
