Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

[antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx]

From: "shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx" <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>
> Okay, the recording of RFJs are covered.  But I still think that for
> reference purposes it would be nice to have a pointer from the rule to
> the RFJ that effects it.  (I think b-nomic did something similar in
> it's previous era.)

Well, I like your idea of having links in the rules to the relevant RFJs (or vice versa) but I think having it as a rule is not a great idea, because that way the administrator is FORCED to do it, and if he hasn't got time to update everything in the wiki correctly every time a RFJ passes he is going to have to do it willy nilly. Once we figure out how to integrate the wiki properly maybe someone will link everything. Or maybe once we have a structure for offices we could create an officer whose duty is to link everything in the wiki
For now, I dont want to scare Peter off right at the beginning.
Also note that the wiki is not part of the rules yet, it's just an instrument that Peter chooses to use. Everything is still happening here on the mailing lists

> You might want to put something in that stops me continually calling
> for a judgement on the same matter.  OTOH you might then need to add
> something about an appeal process...

The appeal process is going to be my next proposal. Actually I was going to propose there not being any appeal process at all. All RFJs are final, and may only be overturned by proposal. How about that ?

> I have no problem with the Admin choosing the Judge.  But you might
> consider choosing the judge randomly, too.

Yes I considered that, I chose to do it this way simply because it was different than what we had in the past. We've always had random selection and I wanted to give direct selection a try.

Antonio





_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss