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.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 15:32 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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 > principle) > to go to the mail archives in the right date range and search on the > identifier > to find the original event. Or where the mail archives don't exist, have > a string that points me to the right kind of event. It seems that > choosing a > number in the current sequence would be very confusing...? > > (btw, having talked it out now I won't quibble too much past this - I > definitely > appreciate the effort regardless of the scheme you finalize). > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > 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, <ke...@u.washington.edu> 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 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 *will* point out that (in terms of common definitions), if I > were working > > in a stockroom, and I asked someone "hey, what's that product ID > number" and > > they said "013-J/X-5593" I would accept that as the "ID number" > without > > worrying about it. So if we allow "standard progression" numbers > before > > 2007 to be grandfathered in by common definition, I don't see how > that > > precludes "unusual" identifiers. > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 14:56 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> > 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 Regulations, not at all for Proposals or CFJs > (unless I'm missing > > > something!) > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > >
