On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:28PM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > > >Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee > >or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a > >jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment > >is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever? > I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of > situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just > determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what > punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee > specialized in the Constitution? >
A 'probi viri' team should be appinted by voting IMHO, as in the DPL case. Random selection is silly. But for that, I think that an elective last resort body is a good idea. Teoretically that role could/should be covered by DPL but a board is something better. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
