1 |
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 06:20:06PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 5:42 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
5 |
> > actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt |
6 |
> > this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
7 |
> > council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Thoughts? |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> IMO while this seems to be a popular sentiment it misses the point of |
13 |
> why organizations have appeals, and seems to be based on some kind of |
14 |
> incorrect notion that people making decisions automatically have a |
15 |
> conflict of interest when hearing appeals of these decisions. |
16 |
|
17 |
I disagree, and since you are talking about the US court system, I'll |
18 |
use that in my arguments. |
19 |
|
20 |
> The concept behind appeals is that you have a group at the top that is |
21 |
> most trusted to make decisions, and they generally set policy, but |
22 |
> this policy is first enacted by lower tiers of the organization |
23 |
> because it would be impractical to have the most trusted body hear |
24 |
> every case. |
25 |
|
26 |
Yes, we agree on this. I agree that the council is supposed to be the |
27 |
most trusted body that is in charge of high level policies/decisions. |
28 |
In my mind, in terms of appeals, that makes it more like the Supreme |
29 |
Court in the US. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Appeals sometimes reverse decisions because these lower groups are |
32 |
> imperfect at enacting the policies set at the top, or they are |
33 |
> operating in areas where no precedent exists. These reversals |
34 |
> shouldn't be seen as some kind of checks/balances system that adds |
35 |
> value, but an inefficiency that wastes time deliberating matters more |
36 |
> than once. It is necessary only because it would be even more |
37 |
> inefficient to slow everything down to a pace where one small group |
38 |
> could deal with it all. |
39 |
|
40 |
I agree that the higher body should not be involved in every case; |
41 |
However, I absolutely do not agree that appeals are not a |
42 |
checks/balances system. If someone appeals something it means that they |
43 |
feel that the decision made by the lower body needs to be re-examined. |
44 |
If the higher body then overrules the lower body, it isn't meant in a |
45 |
shameful way, it is just guidance for the lower body in the future. |
46 |
|
47 |
> So, if there were no QA or comrel, and there were just the council, |
48 |
> and it handled everything and there were no appeals at all, this would |
49 |
> not lower the quality of decisions, but it would actually raise them |
50 |
> (since some incorrect decisions might not be appealed). However, it |
51 |
> would come at a cost of a lot less stuff getting done since you'd have |
52 |
> reducing the pool of labor. |
53 |
|
54 |
Rich, I don't follow this logic at all. |
55 |
|
56 |
> Some organizations find a compromise where a decision might be made by |
57 |
> a subset of a trusted group, and then be appealable to the entirety of |
58 |
> the group. This is common in appellate courts in the US, for example, |
59 |
> where out of the entire group of judges a small panel is chosen to |
60 |
> hear each case, with the decisions being appealable to the entire |
61 |
> group. In these situations the same judges get to vote again in the |
62 |
> full panel despite having already rendered a decision in the previous |
63 |
> panel. This isn't viewed as a conflict of interest, because the |
64 |
> judges were not motivated out of personal interest in the first place. |
65 |
> There is no shame in having a decision reversed because it usually is |
66 |
> a result of unclear precedent. On the second hearing a judge is free |
67 |
> to either change their opinion or keep their previous one. |
68 |
|
69 |
I know about the appellate courts, but there are other levels as well. |
70 |
You would never find a district courte judge on an appellate court |
71 |
simultaneously, and you would never find an appellate court judge or |
72 |
district courte judge serving simultaneously as a justice on the Supreme Court. |
73 |
|
74 |
William |