root wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order >> >> > to determine what panels exist? >> >> >> >> No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both. >> > >> > I'm not sure what revision you're referring to. I've only seen the >> > original version of the proto. >> >> I'm referring to the proto as "the revision" (of the existing rules). > > How does it eliminate potentially creating a brand new panel for each > appeal case? My complaint was that it introduces this.
Let's see, "inspect the entire case history" presumably means that, if the history is presented like so: A in, B in, C in, B out, D in then you have to parse 5 rather than 3 things to determine that the makeup of the panel at the end is A,C,D. (Note that the current makeup is listed above the history, so this applies to past-point-in-time analysis.) On the other hand, if it's presented like so: A B C in, A B C out, A C D in then you have to parse 6 rather than 2 things to determine that the most recent change left A and C involved. The past, present, and proposed future systems each strike different balances between these. Under the proposed future system, each appeal case would get its own (variable-membership) panel, but that panel would only need to be tracked in conjunction with that appeal case.
