Re: [s-d] Transclusion and History don't mix

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, Rule 1-8 would actually allow the renumbering to be done
unilaterally by the MoL, which, if done early enough in the nweek to
give proposals a chance to change what rules they're trying to amend,
would actually be incredibly less ugly than having a passed proposal
change them in the middle of processing all of the other proposals.  I
think if BobTHJ's proposal hadn't failed quorum it would have caused
all of the proposals that came after it and passed to have no effect.

In fact, since it's still Pending and Quorum for this nweek will be
drastically decreased, it'd probably be wise for anyone submitting
Proposals this week to avoid referring to rules they're amending by
number.

On Dec 9, 2007 10:15 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is good reason to vote for or to refine BobTHJ's sequential rule number
> proposal:
>
> (see Rule 1-17 on 1-Oct-2007)
>
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Rules&oldid=2995
>
> - Hose
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss