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.

Reply via email to