On 7/29/2019 4:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full:
>>
>> A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by
>> announcement.
>>
>> The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that
>> judge has violated a time limit for judging the case and has not
>> judged it in the mean time; the Arbitor SHALL do so in a timely
>> fashion after the time limit expires, if able.
>>
>> If a judge is recused from a case 4+ days after being assigned
>> to it, e SHOULD NOT be assigned as a judge until e has apologised
>> and or reasonably explained eir actions.
>
> Don't we still need "the CFJ becomes assigned"? Also maybe the "SHOULD
> suggest another judge..." should be kept; it could go in the first
> paragraph.
>
> Sorry for only reading this after it got distributed.
"The CFJ becomes unassigned" is covered in R991 as synonymous with being
Recused, so it wasn't needed (I think?):
> Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any
> person or "unassigned" (default). To "assign" a CFJ to a person
> is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person. To "remove" or
> "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that
> CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned.
Fine on putting the SHOULD back, hopefully that's not a deal-killer in terms
of voting for this one... (in the few self-recusals I've seen in the past
few months I don't think anyone suggested a different judge, so it wasn't
being paid attention to particularly).
-G.
