Re: [spoon-discuss] finally...

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> -You know, there's no Rule 302. Or 303, or 304... 353. What if 301 (and
> maybe 256 and 441 at some point) was broken into smaller, more manageable
> chunks? It would effectively be the same as the current system; same words,
> same precedents, etc., but it would be easier to look at each section of the
> rule. Would that help, Dave?-

There's *something* numbered 302, 303, 304... probably old proposals, I
dunno right now.

Unless they're old rules, changing a single object number from a proposal
to a rule would make many things in the database go foom. (Or at least
make some of the historical links a LOT less useful.)

But breaking up r301 into a half-dozen rules would give those rules new
rule numbers in the 1100-something range (as of right now), and throw lots
of precedence-related things off. Maybe make r301 a 'placeholder' rule of
some sort? (I don't have any good ideas right now, as I've still got over
two thousand votes, literally, to go through -- the party responsible for
that one knows who e is, and will likely be spanked in the near future. :)

...dave

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss