Re: Number typo in the Constitution [and 1 more messages]
Thijs Kinkhorst writes ("Re: Number typo in the Constitution"):
> This would of course break previous references to the section numbers, and
> may be confusing e.g. when browsing older mail archives referencing a
> specific section. To me an obvious solution would be to renumber the first
> 'A.1.' to 'A.0.', a numbering convention not quite unknown to us all.
> Would there be a drawback in that approach?
I didn't think that the references in old archives were important but
I think actually you are right and they are.
Bastian Blank writes ("Re: Number typo in the Constitution"):
> I don't think this is a good idea, because it breaks _all_ existing
> references. At least in germany, they add a letter in this cases. So
> this would be A.1 and A.1a.
Is it more important to retain unchanged the numbering of the first,
or the second, A.1 ?