I vote as follows, and act on behalf of o to vote as follows:
> 8342j Gaelan, [1] 2.0 Calls with Memoranda AGAINST. These should not become part of precedent but should change/be removed with a change in officer, OR make it clear that an administrative opinion is only a part of precedent as long as that officer holds the position. Otherwise this constrains future officers or requires repeat CFJs whenever a new officer wants to change the policy. Also, between callers, barred parties, and busy judges, adding less flexibility to judicial assignments makes the job challenging. > 8343j twg 1.7 Judicial Jocularity Act AGAINST. Please just no. > 8344* Alexis 3.0 Unsubstantive interpretation PRESENT (for now). I'd like to get more understanding of what constitutes an interpretive principle? > 8345j Jason 2.0 Self-punishment FOR. wcgw > 8346* Jason, ais523 3.0 De-secure Black Ribbons v2 FOR. > 8347* Jason 3.0 R2141 power increase v2 FOR. > 8348* Gaelan 3.1 Summaries Matter AGAINST (for now). My understanding is that this was to fix proposal distributions - but in that case the "summary" is actually the distribution itself? And for assessments, it's the "summary" that's the "action" while the published texts are a convenience, so this rule gets it backwards there? Happy to be convinced otherwise. -G.
