To include repeal dates, this big file referenced on agoranomic.org: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt has rule histories including repeals through the year ~2008.
That problem you mention is indeed an issue. If you take on rulekeepor, remember that *any* ambiguity in rule changes cancels it (a higher standard than for most other things we specify). From R105: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. (The original PAoam's errors would have been unimportant under standards for normal types of actions, but were too ambiguous to meet the above standard for rule changes). On Fri, 6 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Check this link: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-March/000348.html > > You'll have to log into the mailing list, but all the rules are in their final > state there. > > I think you'll do well as a Rulekeepor. :D > > On 04/05/2018 11:53 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote: > > I'm hoping to deputize rulekeepor so we can have an up to date FLR again, > > but I'm lost on some parts. > > > > PAoaM reenacts a bunch of rules, eg 1993/1, 1994/0, 1995/0, but I can't > > find any of them on the archives and they aren't on the github reposity. > > I'd like to find them so I can list the revision history properly. Does > > anybody have their revision history / is there a place I can look that has > > a longer history / is it there and I'm just missing it? > > > > Also, to complicate things further, PAoaM and PAoaM patch refer to > > reenacting 2599 "Welcome Packages", but my understanding of the archives is > > that "Welcome Packages" had id 2499. (See > > https://email@example.com/msg08269.html). > > > > Since both PAoaM and PAoaM patch specifically call to "reenact" and 105 > > says "A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number MUST be > > reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier." this > > could be a problem. > > >