I might be in favor of a change such as`CFJs SHOULD be initiated in a newly named thread, beginning with [CFJ]` so fewer CFJs get `lost`
That might make things easier to get a small handle on? On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some > specific comments. > > When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest > obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them > into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into > arguments, before assignment). > > If this has to be done first, as proposed, case assignments will > drastically slow down and make issues worse (based on my experience, > and on how past clerks did it). > > The current method of "assign on the fly" cuts through that, and the > formatting time delay happens afterwards, so it doesn't slow down > actual court business. > > The disadvantage is that the action is harder to spectate (and comment > on). But at high volumes, even the old system had this issue - there > was plenty of discussion quoting pieces of case logs and the pre- > formatting didn't make spectating any clearer. > > Also, self-assignment actually makes one more thing to track. If > we assume the Arbitor can act at the speed ais523 has been in the last > couple weeks, I think I'd discourage self-assignment. > > Note that *everything* ais523 and I have done in the last couple weeks > has been "timely" - within a week of calling, judging, etc., the > cases have been up. Adding stuff won't speed this up or clear the > courts any faster. > > I think the best solution is first, to remember that CFJs don't change > things immediately, and there's time to reflect; it's ok to just not follow > the arguments and read the cases afterwards (and file Motions at that > point if something goes wonky). And second, given that everyone might > not want to follow along, if this volume is more than a blip, we might > move to a dedicated court forum. > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote: > > I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for > judges while still ensuring that important > > CFJs (those that multiple people have an interest in) get judged. > > > > However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload > for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. > > The Arbitor still has to keep track of all open CFJs and who has > interest in them and with this proposal now > > also who is eligible for which CFJ to judge. > >
