root wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered >> into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908. > > I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that > they had silently agreed to Wooble's attempted judgement in that case, > then the appropriate judgement in CFJ 1908 would have been TRUE, not > FALSE. Ensuring that the panel has agreement -- either unanimous or > majority -- before acting is the responsibility of the panel members > themselves, not the rest of us.
The panelist should keep track of this (even if e isn't dinged for good-faith errors), but the CotC has to keep track of it as well (the alternative is to assume all claims to make the panel act are valid, then have to edit the database if/when an error is pointed out; this is more tedious than just saving up the messages and reviewing them when a claim comes through). >> > 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).
