In my thoughts towards a redesign, I have considered the procedural DISMISSAL, but I strongly oppose the requirement of support. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 26 May 2017, Quazie wrote: >> There's a lot of legal activity going on in Agora these days, and i'm unsure >> if the minimal set of Arbitor duties is allowing me to keep abreast of >> what's happening. >> I proto-propose (though I'd like some assistance if anyone's willing, if not >> I'll flesh this out post memorial day) that the arbitor should produce a >> weekly State of the Bench report. >> >> It should include: >> List of eligible judges (WIth qualifications) so that judges can realize if >> they have put any exceptions in for their judging. >> >> It should include, for each CFJ that has changed since the last report: >> ID - Question - Status - Judge if any - Relevant info about reconsideration >> >> Thoughts? > > ais523 can answer of course, but I privately talked to em about splitting the > role > before e took it, and we agreed that the model of "move fast" (assign as they > come) > and "document later" was a good joint model that suited both our desired > styles. > > I'm worried that adding a required report layer will choke up this model > somewhat > (though that was something like the aim of the Court Gazette). > > But I think the real issue is that we have an unparalleled level of judicial > activity > however it's structured. Scaling up to cope is new territory. I mean, I'm > still > timely at making "weekly" reports and I'm 15+ CFJs behind. We wouldn't make > any new > reports happen more frequently than weekly, and so those would be constantly > out of > date as well - adding workload without aiding in keeping people up to date in > a > very fast-moving environment. > > I hope we don't have to go to a proposal-like system (batch assignments) > because it > might tend to slow things down. But we might have to think about those sorts > of > changes. > > Some of the CFJs have suffered from poor statement wording and unstructured > calling > (e.g. calling a statement on top of a thread of replies, and expecting the > Judge > and/or Clerk to sort out actual arguments). I've pondered a few ideas: > > 1. Requiring support to call a CFJ. > > 2. Allowing the Arbitor to make a first-cut "DISMISS this one - try again but > less messy and label Caller's Arguments". > > But I'm not wholly sure the current method is broken, yet. Dynamic - that it > is. > > -G. > > >
