On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> 6765 P 1 3.0 comex Adoption Without Objection > > AGAINST (Whether or not I like the idea in general - I haven't > > decided - it doesn't give consideration to proposal/decision ID > > numbers, a very long record for documenting ruleset changes). > > Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee)
Does this mean you just paid the fee? That looks like CFJ-worthy ambiguity there... > Amend Rule 1607 by replacing "Distributed proposals have ID numbers" > with "Proposals have ID numbers". Do you think this over-inflates proposal ID numbers with ones that are submitted than retracted? If I submit one to the pool, then 10 minutes later notice a flaw and retract and re-submit, does the promotor still (after the fact) have to assign number to the old one? This is a fairly common occurrence. Maybe a middle ground is "proposals that are distributed or a player announces intent to adopt" get ID numbers. -G.
