Yeah, TOC and Sibling Rule are hardly used.

Agree on the removals, but I’m not sure that the subsections make this more readable, when it breaks into lists of size 3, 6 and 25. If I’m checking to see whether “should” is defined, I might scroll down to the big list of keywords (thinking of it as a simple dictionary), see nothing between “Rule” and “Slack” and assume not.

Kevan: not to spoil it, but I have ideas for proposals that act on those sections as groups.

Some of the ‘other’ words have thematically-related groupings as well that I didn’t get into this proposal. And I don’t know what other people do but when I’m looking for a definition I ctrl-f for it; the glossary itself doesn’t define a large fraction of terms, and isn’t a good first place to look.

Ah, then I’ll wait for those proposals, this seems like a bad interstitial place to leave the Keyword list.

If I’m looking for a definition of a dynastic term I’ll search for it, if I want to check something that may or may not be defined in the Keywords (and which appears dozens of times across the ruleset), I scroll down to the Keywords.

I’m a bit torn along similar lines to Kevan; I’m obviously on the same lines given my work on imperatives and frequencies. The problem is that the big fix-everything proposals always get voted down, and then five years pass and we’re still having arguments about what “should” means. I think I might be ready for the iterative approach.

Think of it as a keyword list with two sublists on especially important topics.

But they aren’t especially important. The imperative list is incomplete at present, and the daily/weekly actions are increasingly being seen as something we should try to avoid.

I think the keywords are more usable as a low-key dictionary of all terms, in alphabetical order, without the reader having to work out which section to check. (If I’m looking to see if we’ve defined “may”, I have to check Imperatives and then - since it’s not in Imperatives and I don’t know whether that’s because the writer didn’t personally consider “may” to be an imperative - Other.)