On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:09:30PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Zefram wrote: > > >Ed Murphy wrote: > >>I'm thinking "SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a > >>smaller number might be invalid". > > > >Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent > >documents, such as a published ruleset, I shouldn't have to reuse it if > >the entity numbered turns out not to have existed. > > In most such cases, some higher numbers would have already been > assigned. Still, may as well change "might be invalid" to "might > be invalid or confusing". > > >I have an idea for preventing the use of really colossal numbers: require > >that the ID number being assigned be stated explicitly as a decimal > >literal in the assigning announcement. No chained arrow notation for us. > > On top of that, we could cap the number of digits based on the > number of digits in any previous number (e.g. cannot expand to > 5 digits until at least one number 9xxx has been assigned).
The recordkeeper could expand by one digit per object numbered in this case - eg, the Promotor could assign proposal 9999, 99999, 999999, ... Personally, I think that this problem could be handled by the following: * Requiring that numbers only be skipped when necessary to avoid confusion or delay, when the existance of one of the entities is in doubt, or when a collision with a previously assigned ID might otherwise occur, and allowing rule 1504 penalties to be applied on violations * Requiring the assigning officer to keep a list of all possibly-assigned IDs after the next one to be assigned, and include them in their monthly report * Allowing a Judicial Order to reset the numbering back in the event that the first point is violated, and not allowing numbering to go backwards in any other case (and possibly allowing the numbering to be /changed/ in some such cases of flagrant abuse) * Requiring the assigning officer to explicitly state the number in decimal form when it is assigned. * Requiring all numbers to be less than N digits (eg, 10), to ensure the ensuing CFJ can actually make it through the list software ;) So if the promotor decides to number a proposal at 9999999999, then the Judge has them write a formal apology, and the numbering is reset back. If they assign a few hundred IDs up there, then the judge puts Em into the Chokey, and renumbers them as appropriate (or leaves it as is, and the officer in question keeps the list or range of assigned values forever).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
