Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be >> sui generis no matter what you call them. > > What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in > the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the > current system, judicial panels can in principle be used for other > types of case as well. All it requires is a statement in the Power=1.7 > rule that defines the case type, as R911 does in its third paragraph. > All the mechanics of panels are located in a single rule which is > not specific to a case type. Panels plug into the mechanics of the > rest of the judicial system (assignment, recusal, judge's obligations) > without making any exception to the Power=2 framework. It's modular, > and that makes the system more understandable and maintainable even if > the module is only invoked in one place.
Partnerships can change membership, and those plugged into the judicial system without any such exceptions; I suspect the exception here could be eliminated with a bit more work. The tricky bits are distribution of case load and obligation among basis members, and fairness. >> existing concept of panels existing independently of cases is confusing. > > Say what? People exist independently of cases, and we don't get confused > about them being assigned (or not) as judges. The comparable case would be defining people as "judges" independently of being assigned to a particular case; or, contrapositively, simply defining "panels" (in which case they could sensibly be assigned roles other than judging). >> Redeveloping the database is not in the cards. > > In that case you shouldn't be relying on it to generate accurate reports. > It's patently unfit for purpose. And it's not like you *need* a > structured database: I did the job for, what, five months?, using no > technology more complicated than flat ASCII text files. Let me rephrase that: major refactoring (e.g. replacing three rows in the 'events' table with one row referencing three rows in a new table) is not happening any time soon. Minor refactoring (of input, store, and output) has happened (e.g. the Supine and Leaning postures, criminal and equity cases), will continue to happen, and should suffice to clear up the point presently under dispute. I do maintain the weekly report as a text file, as some parts either haven't been automated (e.g. recent events) or would require extra work to do so (e.g. why each sitting player most recently sat).
