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 <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> 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 that a special entry is appropriate, hopefully a > descriptive > > term of where/when it happened. > > > > As a recent example: there are some rule changes that you know > well > > Alexis were done "by Decree". I think it's far better to be > descriptive - > > it's better to say something happened "by Decree" than make up a > > proposal number, and there's nothing dishonest in saying "changed > by > > an unnumbered proposal on (date)" and the (date) would lead us to > the > > right point in the archives. > > > > -G. > > > > > > I agree that, in general, we shouldn't assume all rule changes have to > act by proposal > > since that's very much not true, but in these cases these were very much > by proposal. > > I know that the one without a number was adopted without objection, so > it was never > > distributed (if it had been, I'd ask the Promotor to simply assign it an > ID number, > > since that is eir duty), but I haven't had the time to look at how > proposal 01-003 came > > about. > > > > Though, if it was distributed, one could argue that 01-003 is not an ID > number and > > therefore Aris should assign it one. > > ID numbers weren't a defined thing back then, and forcing things into that > scheme > is destructive of history IMO. > > In 2002, before ID numbers were ever explicitly defined, I judged CFJ 1358 > for > which identifying the "name" of a proposal was important. The "name" was > found to > be different than the "title", and I found that the "name" of the proposal > was the > same as what we now call ID number - whatever identifier we primarily use > for > identifying the proposal (e.g. when voting or entering into the FLR). I > don't > think the rules in 1999 were different in that respect. > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1358 > > Therefore I think it's consistent whatever was used as the "name" from > that time > (e.g. 01-003) as the official proposal identifier, without forcing the > "name" to > fit a particular scheme (except maybe for length choosing a shortened > "nickname"). > It is *not* consistent to assume that ID numbers then worked as now, and > forcing > these things to be integers would definitely lose my support. > > (I had to deal with special coding for CFJ appeals/moots so appreciate the > difficulty with exceptions from numerical sequences...) > > -G. > > > >
