Re: Number typo in the Constitution [and 1 more messages]
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:04:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 ?
Well you already made references to the second. I don't think
there would be many references to the first.