Transcript - Commission meeting 15 December 2006, 1 pm

To plan and discuss the meetings to take place under the auspices of the Comission

Moderator: SC Moderators

Justice Soothsayer
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Transcript - Commission meeting 15 December 2006, 1 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[i:39587ncr]Ed. note: "You" = Moon Adamant[/i:39587ncr]

[13:03] You: hi Beathan
[13:03] Beathan Vale: Hi Moon
[13:04] Beathan Vale: is this the meeting?
[13:04] You: yes, it is
[13:04] Beathan Vale: hmm -- rather sparse
[13:04] You: yes
[13:04] You: i'll give it a few minutes
[13:05] Beathan Vale: And I don't know that I have anything to add to me number crunching on the forum
[13:05] Beathan Vale: <-- is a poll loving wonk
[13:05] You: haven't read forums yet
[13:05] You: all my work is late
[13:05] You: hi Ludo and Oni :)
[13:06] Oni Jiutai: Hello.
[13:06] Beathan Vale: well -- I just crunched the nembers around the mean -- found relative confidence in the appeal position, but not really in the others
[13:06] Beathan Vale: Hi Ludo and Oni
[13:06] You: appeal?
[13:06] Beathan Vale: amend I mean
[13:06] You: ah
[13:06] Beathan Vale: I keep doing that
[13:06] Ludo Merit: What is this a meeting of?
[13:06] Beathan Vale: keep having to change my posts because I say appeal and not amend
[13:07] Beathan Vale: Same as the last meeting you attended -- discuss the polling of the commissioners
[13:07] You: yes, that's what i thought myself... but just from a hmmm bird's view?
[13:07] Oni Jiutai: If only appeal was possible. Where is a God-like deity when you need one. ;-)
[13:07] You: everyone, give me some minutes while i go get a bit of orange squash, please
[13:07] Beathan Vale thinks that there are applicants for that position
[13:08] Oni Jiutai: But I've heard the entrance exam is rather hard.
[13:09] Beathan Vale: yeah -- form life out of clay ... make light from nothing ... yough stuff
[13:09] Ludo Merit: I'm sorry. I've lost track. Is this one of the official meetings?
[13:09] Beathan Vale: yes
[13:09] Ludo Merit: So I should have been here? Sorry.
[13:10] Beathan Vale: but we're just chatting to pass time until Moon is done with her squash
[13:10] Ludo Merit: Is this the commission that it meeting?
[13:10] Beathan Vale: yes
[13:10] Beathan Vale: getting started a bit late -- not really going yet
[13:10] You: back
[13:10] Ludo Merit: I'm not keeping track of these meetings very well, forgot I was supposed to be here, or wasn't told.
[13:10] Oni Jiutai: Welcome back.
[13:11] You: thanks :)
[13:11] You: ok, i am going to start at 1.15
[13:11] Ludo Merit: afk brb
[13:11] Beathan Vale: this is a pick up meeting for peeps who couldn't attend last night
[13:11] Beathan Vale: I was in a client meeting and a major windstorm -- so I an attending now rather than then
[13:12] You: oh
[13:12] Michel Manen: Hello all
[13:12] You: argh
[13:12] Oni Jiutai: Hello
[13:12] Ashcroft Burnham: Hello :-)
[13:12] You: btw, are you all having camera bugs since last update too?
[13:13] You: opps, sorry Ludo
[13:13] Beathan Vale: brb
[13:13] Oni Jiutai: Not so far - but I have a Mac so that may be it.
[13:13] Ashcroft Burnham: Oni, did you get to vote?
[13:14] Ludo Merit: back
[13:14] Ashcroft Burnham: Because the procedure was unclear to me.
[13:14] Oni Jiutai: I did - by notecard.
[13:14] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh.
[13:14] Ashcroft Burnham: Are votes now closed?
[13:14] You: hmm, yes
[13:14] Ashcroft Burnham: Ah.
[13:14] Michel Manen: I just came on too
[13:14] You: we did accept one last meeting
[13:15] Oni Jiutai: Despite his non-vote I think I have a good idea of what Ash thinks, so does it matter excessively.
[13:15] Oni Jiutai: ?
[13:15] Ashcroft Burnham: What exactly are we supposed to be discussing here? Because, if it's nothing important, my dinner is waiting...
[13:15] Beathan Vale: we are supposed to be making sense of the vote
[13:15] You: ah, well
[13:16] You: yes
[13:16] You: we - justice and me - are presenting a report tomorrow for the commission
[13:16] Oni Jiutai: I don't think we can make sense of the vote and would like to suggest something radical...
[13:16] You: the RA* sorry
[13:16] Ashcroft Burnham: What will it say?
[13:16] Oni Jiutai: We should stop trying to decide what to do.
[13:16] Beathan Vale: ONi -- I thnk I have already made very good sense of the vote in my forum posts
[13:16] You: well, that's waht we are discussing so far
[13:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Beathan, you've interpreted them to mean what you want them to mean. Much of that "interpretation" is based on idle speculation.
[13:17] Beathan Vale: no -- I wanted them to mean that we would get rid of the JA -- they don't say taht, so I didn't interpret them that way
[13:17] Michel Manen: Are we going to start da capo? lol
[13:18] You: yes lol Michel is right
[13:18] Beathan Vale: I try to honestly interpret the data -- even if I don't like it
[13:18] You: cool down everyone
[13:18] Ashcroft Burnham: Your interpretations were based on idle speculation: nobody was asked about whether judges should be appointed, or what proceduers that there should be. They were only asked about the Judiciary Act.
[13:18] Moon Adamant poinst significantly at soapbox
[13:18] Oni Jiutai: I think the Commision has been very useful. There are two groups with a firm view, A wants minor changes to the JA but basically likes it, B really want to get rid of it and do something completely different. Both have a certain amount of support (which the RA can see as well as we can).
[13:18] Beathan Vale: As Ludo pointed out last meeting - -if this vote means anything, it means that people don't like the status quo or current direction
[13:18] Oni Jiutai: So the RA makes that decision.
[13:19] You: to pick on Oni's words
[13:19] Michel Manen: The basic thing is: % people are in favor of keeping the JA as is; % to reject it entirely; 5 to amend it somehow.
[13:19] Ashcroft Burnham: No, not necessarily. The "amend" people might favour very minor amendments, as Oni does.
[13:19] Michel Manen: i meant 5 each time
[13:19] Beathan Vale: ONi -- you can't say that -- a vote to amend could be a vote to amend radically
[13:19] You: is there a way to possibly establish a compromise between those two groups?
[13:19] Ludo Merit: You're misquoting me.
[13:19] You: what do you all think?
[13:19] Beathan Vale: ONi -- was amend really your first choice -- or was keep ?
[13:19] Ashcroft Burnham: It also tells us that the number of die-hard opponents of the Act are fewer than the number of new citizens attracted by it.
[13:19] Michel Manen: i meant in terns of first choices Ash
[13:19] Beathan Vale: Ludo -- sorry -- did you say it was for the status quo?
[13:19] Oni Jiutai: Yes, but radical amendment is really wanting something completely different - it's then just a question of how you get there.
[13:19] Beathan Vale: I may have misread
[13:20] Beathan Vale: Ash -- 9 of 15 commissioners said had keep the Act as their least favorit option
[13:20] Oni Jiutai: I think we can most usefully figure out what option A and B means - so the RA can implement easily when they choose.
[13:21] Beathan Vale: ONi -- yes -- that is part of next round of voting
[13:21] Ludo Merit: I didn't say either of those extremes.
[13:21] Michel Manen: when will that take place?
[13:21] Ashcroft Burnham: There were more 1 and 2 rank votes for keep or amend without suspending than there were for repeal or amend and suspend.
[13:21] Beathan Vale: Ludo -- I know -- you were for the middle path -- which is also the preferred path -- not either extreme
[13:21] Oni Jiutai: I guess the main point I'm making is that we round this table aren't going to agree, so we should stop arguing.
[13:22] Beathan Vale: Both extremes were realtively disfavored
[13:22] You: indeed Oni, i do agree
[13:22] Ashcroft Burnham: The point is that there's an awful lot of middle ground between the two poles.
[13:22] Beathan Vale: we can agree to dump the extremes -- and we should so agree -- and move on with real amendments to the JA
[13:22] Michel Manen: Wel idont consider keeping the JA as is is extremel after all it was legitimately ratified by the RA
[13:22] Ludo Merit: And that ground is not very well defined.
[13:22] Beathan Vale: right -- so our next job is to start defining it
[13:22] Beathan Vale: MM - -that view clearly lost in the polling
[13:23] Ashcroft Burnham: We'll find that there are as many positions as people.
[13:23] Michel Manen: no one lost and no one won
[13:23] Michel Manen: its a deadlock
[13:23] Beathan Vale: Ash - -but we will find clusters and be able ot move to compromise and consensus
[13:23] Michel Manen: which we knew befor
[13:23] You: well, i don't think it is constructive to look at this like a win race
[13:23] Ashcroft Burnham: We did that when the Act was passed. You evidently don't believe in compromise.
[13:23] Beathan Vale: No -- we have a real opportunity to make progress here
[13:23] Ludo Merit: Five were for it, it was not lost. And many chose keeping as second.
[13:23] Ludo Merit: Sorry.
[13:23] Beathan Vale: Ash -- no -- Ibelieve in compromise, I don't believe in the Act
[13:24] Ashcroft Burnham: You believe in compromise, only when you consider it a favourable compromise?
[13:24] Michel Manen: and also, as nightwood rightly said, 85 % of the poluation didnt even have the chance to give any input because of the rush this Commission is showing
[13:24] Ashcroft Burnham: The Act was a compromise.
[13:24] Beathan Vale: Ludo -- 1 chose to keep it as second -- not many
[13:24] Ludo Merit: It seems to me there are two questions before us.
[13:24] Oni Jiutai: Hello Justice.
[13:24] Justice Soothsayer: sorry to be so late
[13:24] You: hi Justice
[13:24] Beathan Vale: And 5 people were for outright repeal too
[13:24] Justice Soothsayer: one RL work crisis after another
[13:24] Michel Manen: so all we know is what 15 people think
[13:24] Beathan Vale: Nine people said the Act as is was worst case option
[13:25] Beathan Vale: That is a majority -- even if all 17 commissiioners had voted
[13:25] Ludo Merit: And eight said repeal or suspend were worst.
[13:25] Beathan Vale: It is the only clear majority we had
[13:25] Ashcroft Burnham: Of those who ranked keep it as it is at no. 4, a substantial proportion ranked amend with out suspending at 1 or 2.
[13:25] Michel Manen: that's pretty much the vaue of this Commissionl it tells us what 15 people out of 65 think - and its a 5 - 5 - 5 deadlock in first choices
[13:25] You: btw everyone, sorry
[13:25] You: forgot to ask permission to record
[13:25] Ashcroft Burnham: And that's all bearing in mind that I didn't get to vote.
[13:25] Moon Adamant has no recorder
[13:25] Ashcroft Burnham: As with a number of other commissioners.
[13:26] Ashcroft Burnham: You have my permission.
[13:26] Oni Jiutai: I don't think that trying to use the voting to decide what to do is useful (particularly since the ultimate decision isn't our anyway). We need to try to reduce the options to 2 or 3 ways forward, which the RA can sensibly vote on.
[13:26] Justice Soothsayer: just rezzed recorder
[13:26] Beathan Vale: But a clear dislike of the extremes by a majority of commissioners
[13:26] Beathan Vale: and I say this being thelead advocate for one of the extremes
[13:26] Michel Manen: Well thats another matter
[13:26] Michel Manen: Oni
[13:26] Beathan Vale: and keep the act is considered an extreme here
[13:26] Michel Manen: i was just commenting on what the vote last night really means
[13:26] Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, most people ranked one of the "extremes" as a first choice. There are very few people who ranked the middle positions as a first choice. The "extremes" are preferred.
[13:27] Michel Manen: Bye you maybe Beathan; certainly not be me.
[13:27] Beathan Vale: Ash -- true -- but fairly split data there -- doesn't tell us much beyond that the fracture exists
[13:27] Ashcroft Burnham: Beathan, only you consider keeping a democratically legitimated Act extreme. It is a pole on a scale of opinion: that does not make it extreme.
[13:27] Ashcroft Burnham: The data really doesn't tell us very much useful at all except that there is less opposition to the judiciary than you thought that there was.
[13:28] Michel Manen: hear hear
[13:28] Beathan Vale: if something is on the edge of a scale - -it is extreme by definition, at least under the scale or as measured by it
[13:28] Justice Soothsayer: and not as much support as others may have though there is
[13:28] Justice Soothsayer: *thought
[13:28] Michel Manen: thats semantics Beathtan
[13:28] Michel Manen: it may be so methodologically
[13:28] Beathan Vale: Ash -- what data are you reading -- I was favorably surprised -- I though my position would com in last -- not next to last
[13:28] Michel Manen: but extreme in this context
[13:28] Ashcroft Burnham: You're being deliberately ambiguous with "extreme". One can always invent a scale on which any view is "extreme". That doesn't make it extreme in the more usual sense.
[13:28] Beathan Vale: I had only 2 votes ifor repeal n my pre-poll estimate
[13:29] Michel Manen: has an enteriley diffrent connotation; which i do not accept
[13:29] Beathan Vale: I missed this one == it was better thena I thought -- like the US Senate election
[13:29] You: oops, we lost Ludo
[13:29] Ashcroft Burnham: :-(
[13:29] Justice Soothsayer: that trek transporter must have beamed her up
[13:29] Beathan Vale: I thought appeal would win -- but I figured that keep the Act would be second, not fourth, on the overall numbers
[13:29] Beathan Vale: The numbers put Keep the Act in last place
[13:30] Ashcroft Burnham: One can say that "Do not destroy North America" is an "extreme" on a scale of do not destroy, destroy only a small amount, destroy most of it, or destroy all of it.
[13:30] Beathan Vale: Although -- Ashs vote would bring it into 3rd I think
[13:30] You: wb Ludo :)
[13:30] Oni Jiutai: Welcome back, Ludo
[13:30] Ashcroft Burnham: But one cannot sensibly say that those who favour not destroying North America are extremists.
[13:30] Michel Manen: For me the key question is: given the very limited value of yesterday's poll, how will the commission proceed to make recommendations to the RA?
[13:30] Justice Soothsayer: Let me ask you a question about what to suggest for the RA tomorrow:
[13:30] Ashcroft Burnham: How about "Never hold a commission again"?
[13:30] Michel Manen: here hear Justice
[13:30] Justice Soothsayer: should this commission continue? what if anything should it do?
[13:30] Michel Manen: thats the issue we should be addressing
[13:31] Ashcroft Burnham: No: the commission is worthless for all the reasons that Nightwind gave yesterday, and I expaned upon in the forums.
[13:31] Beathan Vale: Ash-- why not? this commission is working -- Jon Seattle himself said the he learned something that he wanted to know as an RA member
[13:31] Ashcroft Burnham: Beathan: are you capable of addressing the substance of Nightwind's arguments?
[13:31] Beathan Vale: We should move onto the Seattle voting proposal -- set priorities for action and amendment of the JA
[13:32] Beathan Vale: Yes -- and I have -- and the next election will either prove or disprove this commission's representativeness
[13:32] Michel Manen: Well, this Commission , should it choose to do a commission's work as opposed to rushing the process so much as to be basically irrelevant, could paly a constructive role
[13:32] Beathan Vale: But wehave more people invovled now than we had involved when the JA passed originally
[13:32] Ashcroft Burnham: *Where* have you responded to Nightwind's arguments?
[13:32] Beathan Vale: Not by name -- but by the substance of my analysis
[13:32] Ashcroft Burnham: As I have stated before, it is the PJSP's job to monitor the performance of the judiciary.
[13:33] Justice Soothsayer: well, in case you havent' noticed, we dont have a PJSP yet
[13:33] Oni Jiutai: I think the Commission should continue. If we continue along the current path with some amendments it should continue to publically consult and feed that into the process. If we go down another path, it should start trying to figure out what that path should be.
[13:33] Beathan Vale: and the RAs job is to monitor the performance of all instittuions in the state -- including the Judiciary and the PJSB
[13:33] Ashcroft Burnham: We have enough people for one.
[13:33] Ashcroft Burnham: Blame us not having one on the SC for delaying the elections.
[13:33] Justice Soothsayer: not assigning blame
[13:34] Michel Manen: well all the RA has to do is to authorise a PJSP election as soon as possible; the candidates are available
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: But the PJSP could, when it is constituted, look back at what had happened before it was constituted. There's no reason not to have the PJSP doing its constitutional task.
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: The advantage of the PJSP over this commission is that the PJSP is elected, not self-appointing.
[13:34] Michel Manen: the RA could authorise PJSP elections tomorrow
[13:35] Ashcroft Burnham: It represents the whole electorate, not just the people most interested in the topic.
[13:35] You: hmmm
[13:35] Beathan Vale: and what is the benefit of representing people with no dog in the hunt?
[13:35] Michel Manen: if we were able to hold a vote in 24 hours for this Commissionn, why not for the PJSP??
[13:35] You: do you think the whole electorate would vote for the PJSP?
[13:35] Ashcroft Burnham: What on earth do you mean by that odd metaphor, Beathan?
[13:35] Michel Manen: did it for this Commssion???
[13:35] You: well, anyone could join...
[13:35] Michel Manen: you have to be consistent here, moon
[13:36] Ashcroft Burnham: There'll never be a 100% turnout, but if the elections are advertised properly, there'll likely be more than in the commission.
[13:36] Beathan Vale: if someone does not care abvout an election -- they don't vote -- so why do you think that a vote for the PJSB would have more than 17 voters?
[13:36] Michel Manen: so anyopne can in the PJSP vote
[13:36] You: as anyone could join this commission
[13:36] Beathan Vale: Well -- FR and Dimsum would also vote -- so say 20 voters
[13:36] Beathan Vale: It's a turnout issue
[13:36] Ashcroft Burnham: The elections would, if held properly, be advertised for weeks. All the candidates would campaign.
[13:36] Beathan Vale: That is one serious problem with Nightwinds analysis -- that analysis assumes 100 percent interest and turnout
[13:36] Ashcroft Burnham: No it doesn't.
[13:36] Ashcroft Burnham: It assumes *significance*.
[13:37] Michel Manen: Actually i fully intend to raise this issue about PJSP elections tomorrow in the strongest terms, given the precent established by the vote for this Commission
[13:37] Ashcroft Burnham: He *expressly* said that if the Commission had had ten or so more people, that would have been enough for him.
[13:37] Beathan Vale: Further -- the Nightwind analysis treats this commission as a referendumn -- it isn't -- it's a commission
[13:37] Ludo Merit: Do we as a commission have the option to continue. We exist to give a report, once it is given we are done.
[13:37] Ashcroft Burnham: So it's a gross misrepresentation of his arguments to contend that he relies on 100% turnout.
[13:37] Oni Jiutai: afk
[13:37] Michel Manen: i think wew should go back to Justice's question
[13:38] Justice Soothsayer: Ludo, as to your point,...
[13:38] Beathan Vale: No -- he said that the commission had less than 1/4 od the WHOLE electorate -- so it was not a rep sample given our small population
[13:38] Justice Soothsayer: that will be for the RA to decide, but we certainly would value your opinion.
[13:38] Ashcroft Burnham: I think that the commission has achieved very little, has cost everybody a great deal of time, and that any further work should be done by the PJSP, the body that exists for the very purpose.
[13:38] Ashcroft Burnham: If there is a concern that the PJSP won't exist in time, the RA should enjoin the SC to hold elections in two or three weeks' time.
[13:38] Beathan Vale: He is right as a matter of statistics-- but only if we are supposed to be a representative sampel, we aren't -- we are a commission
[13:38] Ashcroft Burnham: Beathan, he *expressly* said that if it had had ten or so more people, that would have been enough.
[13:39] Beathan Vale: Well -- we have 17 people -- so it is enough
[13:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Nightwind didn't think so.
[13:39] Michel Manen: I agree; but as a Commission, our recommendations cant be based on an unrepresentative 15 per cent of the DCS population
[13:39] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Hello Damen und Herren
[13:39] Beathan Vale: Nightwind Leonov: if this was 20, or 30 people out of 65, sure.
[13:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Hello TOPGenosse :-)
[13:40] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes.
[13:40] Ashcroft Burnham: So not relying on 100% turnout.
[13:40] Ludo Merit: We are resopnsible for our recommendations and for what they are based on.
[13:40] Beathan Vale: He said 14 not enough
[13:40] Ashcroft Burnham: That was the number who voted.
[13:40] You: i think the work - and the opinion - of everyone that has participated in the commission shoudl be respected.
[13:40] Beathan Vale: The silent majority is silent ==- might even be disinterested -- tells us nothing of value
[13:40] Michel Manen: thats a different issue justice
[13:40] Ashcroft Burnham: That may be, Moon, but that doesn't mean that the commission, as a commission, has achieved anything. We have had the same opinions as we have had in the forums.
[13:40] Oni Jiutai: I don't think we can make a recommendation in the sense of "We should do this". We need to "We should do this, or this" and here (point to forums, transcripts etc) are the arguments and views.
[13:40] Michel Manen: of course we respect the work
[13:40] Ashcroft Burnham: From the same people.
[13:41] Michel Manen: and the individuals
[13:41] Michel Manen: who put in the time
[13:41] Beathan Vale: the commission is a group of interested people -- and is valuable for that reason -- regardlesss of its use as a rep sample
[13:41] Oni Jiutai: I mean, I think I'm a reasonable advocate, but I don't think I can persuade Ash and Beathan to agree on anything by tomorrow...
[13:41] Justice Soothsayer: hehe, Oni
[13:41] Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
[13:41] Ludo Merit: Why are we arguing about whether we are worthless or not instead of deciding what to recommend, as we have been asked to do.
[13:41] Michel Manen: the question is: given that the poll itself cannot be the basis of its recommendations, what will these be?
[13:41] Beathan Vale: Ludo -- true -- but we ahve to agree to continue befroe we can recommend anythign
[13:42] You: indeed Ludo
[13:42] Ashcroft Burnham: We should recommend that the elected representatives make up their own mind, as their democratic legitimacy is greater than ours.
[13:42] Beathan Vale: MM -- that is wrong -- the poll is very meaningful
[13:42] You: i would like to ask everyone's opinion on this
[13:42] Beathan Vale: Ash -- our job is recommend things to them -- help them -- not make up their minds for them
[13:42] Oni Jiutai: I don't think we do, we can present the options
[13:42] You: Ludo, want to start? please take the soapbox
[13:42] The Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
[13:42] Ashcroft Burnham: Different people have recommended differnet things. There is no basis in the findings of the commission for any one recommendation.
[13:42] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:42] Michel Manen: The pol shows that the 15 most involved people in this issue are equally divided 5 -5 - 5
[13:42] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:43] Michel Manen: thats the beginning and end of it
[13:43] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:43] Ludo Merit: Moon, what exactly do you want our opinion on. Define your question or each iof us will answer a different one.
[13:43] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:43] The Soapbox: Queue is empty
[13:43] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[13:43] The Soapbox: Justice Soothsayer has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[13:44] The Soapbox: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
[13:44] Justice Soothsayer: sorry to grab the box, but i have to leave very shortly
[13:44] Justice Soothsayer: i think one thing is clear - there is no clear consensus from this Commission
[13:45] Justice Soothsayer: What I plan to report tomorrow morning to the RA is the chart on the wall, our forum postings, and the transcripts.
[13:45] Justice Soothsayer: Those have, actually, told me quite a bit.
[13:45] The Soapbox: Beathan Vale has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[13:45] Justice Soothsayer: My question for all of you (and I'll read the trancripts after I leave) is whether
[13:46] Justice Soothsayer: having the commission continue to explore and discuss possible options for amendment (mine, Ash's, and others yet to come) is worthwhile.
[13:46] Justice Soothsayer: And of course, you are all free to provide your opinions directly to your elected representatives and to the public via thje forums.
[13:47] Justice Soothsayer: Thanks for all of the time you have given to this project so far, and again, my apologies for having to leave prematurely.
[13:47] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:47] The Soapbox: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[13:47] The Soapbox: Beathan Vale is on the soapbox now!
[13:47] Ludo Merit: Moon, what do you want our opinion on.
[13:47] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:47] Ashcroft Burnham: As I have said, any further work should be done by the PJSP.
[13:47] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:47] Michel Manen: Well, the Commission was asked to make recommendations. Are we going to make any specific recommendations? And if so - will the be based on a poll of the 15 people most involved in this debate even beefore the poll was taken?
[13:47] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:47] Beathan Vale: I disagree that there is not clear consensus from this commission
[13:47] Ludo Merit: No, I'm here.
[13:47] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:48] The Soapbox: You've been added to the list
[13:48] Beathan Vale: The polling showed that comissioners clearly preferred the amendment option
[13:48] Ludo Merit: No
[13:48] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:48] Beathan Vale: On up/down towp two/bottom two voting -- this option passed 11 to 4
[13:50] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:50] The Soapbox: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[13:50] The Soapbox: Michel Manen has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[13:50] The Soapbox: Moon Adamant is on the soapbox now!
[13:50] You: to answer Ludo's question
[13:51] You: Justice's question is an important question
[13:51] You: shoul we recommend to keep the commission working?
[13:51] The Soapbox: Ashcroft Burnham has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[13:52] You: i would like to hear your views on this
[13:52] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:52] The Soapbox: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[13:52] The Soapbox: Oni Jiutai has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[13:52] You: Michel now, i beleive
[13:52] Justice Soothsayer: sorry i have to head out
[13:52] You: believe*
[13:52] Ludo Merit: My answer to that depends partly on what the commission recommends now.
[13:52] Oni Jiutai: Bye, Justice.
[13:52] You: bye Justice, i'll send you teh first part of teh transcript :)
[13:53] The Soapbox: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
[13:53] Michel Manen: Well, I agree with Ash, unsurprisingly.
[13:53] Michel Manen: This commission as rushed from the beginning
[13:54] Michel Manen: The vote taken indicated total deadlock
[13:54] Ludo Merit: title off
[13:54] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:54] Michel Manen: What would a continuation achieve?
[13:54] Michel Manen: More deadlock.
[13:54] Michel Manen: Between the same 15 people
[13:54] Michel Manen: Is that constructive?
[13:54] Michel Manen: Not in the least.
[13:54] Michel Manen: My recommendation would be
[13:54] Michel Manen: very specific and short
[13:54] Michel Manen: Given the deadlock of this Commission
[13:55] Michel Manen: and the small number of people who voted yesterday
[13:55] Michel Manen: and given a pol showing a 5 5 5 deadlock
[13:55] Michel Manen: this commission should bee dispanded;
[13:56] Michel Manen: the RA should immedately authorise elections of the PJSP
[13:56] Michel Manen: before the next elections
[13:56] Michel Manen: and the PJSP, as originally intended
[13:56] Michel Manen: should carry out its mandate
[13:56] Michel Manen: which would cover the work
[13:56] Michel Manen: this commision cannot do now.
[13:56] Michel Manen: Thank you.
[13:56] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:56] The Soapbox: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[13:57] The Soapbox: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
[13:57] You: oops, crazy again
[13:57] You: ashcroft now, then beathan
[13:57] Oni Jiutai: No - it just really wants Justice to come back.
[13:57] The Soapbox: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
[13:57] You: then Oni
[13:57] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:57] Ashcroft Burnham: As Michel said, the whole purpose of the PJSP was to do exactly what this commission is doing.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: The difference with the PJSP is that it is more representative: its constitution is based on a popular ballot rather than self-nomination.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Its numbers are limited to a managable level ((3-5).
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: It is required to set procedures and work according to them.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: And, most importantly, it is not rushed.
[13:58] Michel Manen: hear hear
[13:58] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:59] Ashcroft Burnham: There is no point in having a PJSP one of whose constitutional functions is to write reports on the judiciary and then also have a commission to do the very same thing.
[13:59] Ashcroft Burnham: The whole idea of PJSP was a body which, as its name rather implies, scrutinises the judiciary.
[13:59] Ashcroft Burnham: If anyone should be scrutinising the judiciary, it should be the body that the constitution established for that very purpose.
[14:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Unlike the medly in this commission, the PJSP will be independent of the judiciary (judges are not allowed to sit), *and* independent of the political process (neither are politiccians), and will have conduct of the day-to-day complaint handling (if there is any) and oversight of the judiciary.
[14:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Whether there is a commission or not, the constitution mandates that such a body exists.
[14:01] Ashcroft Burnham: Therefore, it does not make any sense to convene an everlasting commission to do that exact same work.
[14:01] Ashcroft Burnham: It'd be like convening a special "census commission" to take a census of the population, even though the SC is already doing that.
[14:01] Ashcroft Burnham: The commission has been inconclusive in its results, has told us nothing beyond what we know in the forums, and has been dogged by lack of formalised procedures.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: It has also been rushed.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: The PJSP will be none of those things.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: If we are to have people making serious considerations about what we should do with our judiciary, a serious institution, and if we expect to take those recommendations seriously, then we need to entrust that process to a body capable of the task.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: That body is the PJSP.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you for listening :-)
[14:02] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:02] The Soapbox: It is Moon Adamant's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[14:03] You: beathan now
[14:03] The Soapbox: Ludo Merit has just requested a turn on the soapbox.
[14:03] You: beathan, then Oni, then Ludo
[14:03] Ashcroft Burnham: Didn't Beathan depart suddenly?
[14:03] You: oh beathan is off
[14:03] You: Oni then
[14:04] You: and if beathan returns, we will have his turn
[14:04] The Soapbox: Oni Jiutai is on the soapbox now!
[14:04] You: he*
[14:04] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:04] Oni Jiutai: As to the future of the Commission,
[14:04] Oni Jiutai: I think it has been quite useful.
[14:05] Oni Jiutai: It has generated a lot of debate, lots of views have been heard and I feel I know more about what everybody thinks.
[14:06] Oni Jiutai: I think it can be useful in the future as a way of giving the general public a voice and a way of feeding into what the RA and the PJSP are doing.
[14:06] Oni Jiutai: But I don't think it's every going to be able to say "The Commission recommends that you amend the JA by deleting section X and replacing it with the following".
[14:07] Oni Jiutai: Not only can't we agree, that's what the PJSP is for anyway.
[14:07] Oni Jiutai: Quickly on what we should recommend.
[14:08] Oni Jiutai: I think we say that there is no clear view of the commission and no clear view in the general public.
[14:09] Oni Jiutai: But I do think my coffee / tea metephor is at least a bit useful. What Ash, Michel and I want is coffee; Beathan and others want tea. We can't have both and it's up to the RA to decide.
[14:10] The Soapbox: They've been on for 1 minutes and prompted to wrap it up
[14:10] You: Oni, past 5 minutes
[14:10] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:10] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:10] The Soapbox: It is Moon Adamant's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[14:10] Oni Jiutai: Thanks
[14:10] Beathan Vale: Oni -- surely I want coffee and you Brits want tea ;-)
[14:10] You: Ludo, i am going to call Beathan first
[14:10] Ashcroft Burnham: To which I should add: they already *have* decided, why should they change their minds because the people who wanted tea all along still want it?
[14:10] You: and then you
[14:10] Oni Jiutai: I drink both - but not at the same time
[14:10] Beathan Vale: I'm a Pac NWer after all
[14:10] Michel Manen: hahaha
[14:11] Beathan Vale: Ash -- if it is really bad tea -- yes
[14:11] You: hmmmm
[14:11] Michel Manen: s
[14:11] You: Beathan?
[14:11] You: or can Ludo go first?
[14:11] Beathan Vale: I crashed earleier
[14:11] Michel Manen: Starbucks or Seatlle's Best Beathan?
[14:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Beathan, saying "this tea is no good. Let's have coffee instead" makes no sense.
[14:11] Beathan Vale: still having power surge problems from the storm
[14:11] You: yes, i called Oni then
[14:11] TOPGenosse Brouwer: I'm all pro coffee and anti-tea :D
[14:11] Beathan Vale: Actually -- I like a local outfit calle dBatdorf and Bronson
[14:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Has nobody considered fruit smoothies?
[14:11] Michel Manen: ;)
[14:12] You: and Ludo was next to Oni
[14:12] Ludo Merit: So, me or Beathan?
[14:12] Beathan Vale: I had trouble loggin on -- my comments are in the forums -- jsut a stat analysis and quesitona bvout what this vote was intended to poll - -the commission or the population
[14:12] Beathan Vale: Ludo -- go
[14:12] The Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
[14:12] You: Ludo then - and thanks Beathan
[14:12] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:13] Ludo Merit: I think this commission should be disbanded as soon as the pjsp is elected.
[14:13] Ludo Merit: I think this commissiion should recommend that the pjsp be elected asap
[14:14] Ludo Merit: I have other suggestions about what I think this commission should recommend. Do I state them now or limit myself to Moon's question?
[14:14] You: please go on
[14:14] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:15] Ludo Merit: It is evident that there is little support for going back to square one, suspending the JA and putting nothing in place.
[14:15] Ludo Merit: There is some support for repealing the entire JA and an equal amount of support for keeping it, in first choices.
[14:16] Ludo Merit: Another third of us recommend amending and as has been pointed out, it is hard to tell from that just how extensive the amendments are that they want.
[14:17] Ludo Merit: When going to a second choice, everybody headed for the middle ground.
[14:18] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Hello Flyingroc
[14:18] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:18] Ludo Merit: I would like to see this commission recommend that the JA be in effect until amended and that amendments be proposed and considered. Specific amendments. No
[14:18] The Soapbox: They've been on for 1 minutes and prompted to wrap it up
[14:18] You: Ludo, 5 minute spast
[14:18] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:19] Ludo Merit: Not necessarily proposed by the commission, but proposed and processed in the way that amendments are normally proposed and processed after an act has passed.
[14:19] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:19] The Soapbox: It is Moon Adamant's turn to speak, please touch the soapbox to invite them!
[14:19] You: Beathan?
[14:19] Ashcroft Burnham: Hear hear, Ludo :-)
[14:19] Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo is the voice of moderation, and what she says makes much sense.
[14:19] Beathan Vale: Moon -- everything I have is in my post on the last meeting -- I amened it when I could not log back on
[14:19] You: ok Beathan
[14:19] Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Gwyn :-)
[14:20] Beathan Vale: But this commission is to make recommednation -- we should do so
[14:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi :)
[14:20] You: just calling you because you had indeed touched the soapbox
[14:20] Michel Manen: Hi Gwyn ;)
[14:20] Beathan Vale: I see no reason to give up the ghost yet
[14:20] You: and hello FR and Gwyn :)
[14:20] Flyingroc Chung: hello
[14:20] You: for the latecomers
[14:20] Ashcroft Burnham: We were discussing, Gwyn, whether the Commission should be disbanded after the PJSP is elected.
[14:20] Ludo Merit: If we can agree on amendments to recommend let's
[14:20] You: well, not quite
[14:20] Ashcroft Burnham: Because otherwise two bodies would be doing the same job...
[14:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well hmm
[14:20] Beathan Vale: No -- we were discussing, in general -- what the coimmission should do now
[14:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the comission has a set purpose...
[14:21] Flyingroc Chung: redundant systems are no always bad
[14:21] Beathan Vale: Ash just want is disbanded because he didn't like the vote
[14:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Once it fullfills that purpose, it's over :)
[14:21] Ashcroft Burnham: They are when they can conflict, and when there's no need for the redundancy.
[14:21] You: we are listening to each other's opinion on what should this commission recommend, and if thsi commission should carry on
[14:21] Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn has a good point.
[14:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmm
[14:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
[14:21] You: want to take the soapbox?
[14:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nah, not really, I truly haven't thought about it :)
[14:22] You: FR?
[14:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just thinking out loud, really :)
[14:22] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, they're good thoughts :-)
[14:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn *shrugs*
[14:23] Flyingroc Chung: nah
[14:23] Flyingroc Chung: anybody have the text to the act that formed the commission tho?
[14:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm also not against "redundancy", but well, there should be clear separations in we have multiple bodies doing basically the same thing...
[14:24] You: hmmm, let me see
[14:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *if
[14:24] Flyingroc Chung: thanks
[14:24] Moon Adamant rummages
[14:24] Ashcroft Burnham: There'd be no separation here.
[14:24] Ashcroft Burnham: They'd both be doing *exactly* the same thing.
[14:24] Ashcroft Burnham: It'd be a terrible waste of resources.
[14:24] Ashcroft Burnham: And would undermine the function of the PJSP, which has more democratic legitimacy than this self-selecting body.
[14:24] Ashcroft Burnham: The PJSP is also more independent.
[14:25] You: hmmm, can't find it FR, sorry
[14:25] Flyingroc Chung: ashcroft gave me a copy, moon, but thanks.
[14:25] Ashcroft Burnham: "The Special Commission shall meet on December 13, 2006 to make written recommendations to the RA no later than 5:00 pm SLT on December 14, 2006 regarding what action, if any, the RA should take on the various proposals to amend or repeal the Judiciary Act, and the recommendations shall be posted on the forums. Any member or group of members of the Special Commission may submit dissenting opinions on the forums."
[14:25] You: can you check if it is laready on the wiki?
[14:25] Ashcroft Burnham: So, we're already too late :-p
[14:26] Michel Manen: Besides, the Commision is self-nominated except for the Co-Chairs and has too many members to be capable to either meet effectively as a body, or to reach a decision about recommendations.
[14:26] Ashcroft Burnham: The only thing that we can sensibly say, though, is "We cannot recommend anything because we all disagree".
[14:26] Flyingroc Chung: I think it's up to the Ra if it wants t ocmmission to conitue, but if the RA does not expand the commission's scope, the commission's work is over.
[14:26] Beathan Vale: We don't -- we agree to amend
[14:26] Beathan Vale: but not suspend or repeal
[14:27] Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, Beathan, that's not an accurate analysis.
[14:27] Michel Manen: indeed
[14:27] Beathan Vale: Ash -- you just don't know how to read a ranked preference poll
[14:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn has to side with FR on that, from a strict and literal interpretation of what the RA has indeed approved.
[14:27] Ashcroft Burnham: No more people voted to amend as their first preference than to keep or repeal as their first preference.
[14:27] Michel Manen: a third of the Commison opposes any amendment
[14:27] Ashcroft Burnham: That means that we do not agree about whether to amend.
[14:27] Flyingroc Chung: but, the government cant force the various interested parties from continuting to meet, and make recommendations, of cours, that's a fundamental human right.
[14:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, FR.
[14:27] Beathan Vale: Actaully -- its more like a fourth that opposes amendment
[14:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And the RA can obviously create new committees
[14:27] Ashcroft Burnham: A person is not agreeing to do something by stating that doing that thing is her or his second choice.
[14:28] Beathan Vale: that is how you read this kind of poll
[14:28] Beathan Vale: it shows ranked preference
[14:28] Flyingroc Chung: did anybody doa borda-count ranking of the votes?
[14:28] Ashcroft Burnham: FR, nobody's suggesting that the government *ban* informal meetings.
[14:28] Ashcroft Burnham: Just that the commission, as officially constituted, is disbanded.
[14:28] Flyingroc Chung: The idea of ranking is to try to find popular middle grounds.
[14:28] Michel Manen: 5 nays out of 15 votes is a third to me Beathan ;)
[14:28] Beathan Vale: FR -- exactly
[14:29] Ashcroft Burnham: But a popular middle ground is not the same as a common agreement.
[14:29] Beathan Vale: although I would say "acceptable" middle gorund -- not popular middle ground
[14:29] Ashcroft Burnham: Which is even less further from agreement.
[14:29] Beathan Vale: True -- but the ranked preference polls rarely show absolute agreement -- there are toomany options
[14:29] Oni Jiutai: And "amend" covers quite a bit of ground all on its own
[14:29] Beathan Vale: we agree that we can generally accept this middle ground-- where is the lack of agreement in that?
[14:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Everything in the CDS can be amended.
[14:30] Ashcroft Burnham: All that we can say is "most people want either to keep it as it is or do away with it entirely, but, most people also think that amending it is better than doing the opposite of their first preference".
[14:30] Oni Jiutai: I mean we could amend by saying the Court will now be supreme not High
[14:30] Beathan Vale: Gwyn -- yes -- bue we are saying that the JA should be amended, not merely that it can be
[14:30] Michel Manen: amend is the catch all categoryr between aye and naye; it can be absoltely anything and everything
[14:30] Oni Jiutai: Or we could amend by declaring Ludo supreme ruler for lif.
[14:30] Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, that might work.
[14:30] Beathan Vale: But we arent' say ing how -- yet -- and we might not be able to
[14:30] You: i am going to give 10 more minutes to this discussion
[14:30] Ashcroft Burnham: Then I can go for dinner! :-D
[14:30] Beathan Vale: MM -- too right -- so we have more work to do to flesch that out
[14:31] You: and me for dinner as well
[14:31] Beathan Vale: we should not disband the commission before at least trying to do that work
[14:31] Ashcroft Burnham: I have to say, people are being positively put off by things like this commission as "bickering" and "in-fighting".
[14:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aaah
[14:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. Lesson learned, no more comission decisions ;)
[14:31] Ashcroft Burnham: Which is another good reason not to continue it, and let the level-headed PJSP do its work.
[14:31] Flyingroc Chung: can we say that a substantial majority wants a *change* in the JA, either through amendment, or outright repeal?
[14:31] Beathan Vale: Ash -- most commissions I ahve served on do -- because we try to include all stake holders -- not merely one side
[14:31] Oni Jiutai: The problem is that i don't think there is a middle ground on the central issue - what sort of dispute resolution should we have.
[14:31] Oni Jiutai: People have incompatible desires.
[14:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, Oni.
[14:32] Ashcroft Burnham: FlyingRoc, no we can't, because there was no majority in favour of change as a first choice.
[14:32] Oni Jiutai: Which can't meet in the middle.
[14:32] Beathan Vale: Oni -- I am not opposed to a trial model
[14:32] Beathan Vale: Just to THIS tiral model
[14:32] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[14:32] Ashcroft Burnham: People saying "I *really* want *this*, but if I can't have it, I suppose that *this* is better than the worst alternative" doesn't mean very much.
[14:32] Flyingroc Chung: it means a lot
[14:32] Beathan Vale: Ash -- it mens everything in RL
[14:32] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd say, it means compromise.
[14:32] Beathan Vale: to say otherwise is to act like a spoiled child
[14:33] You: perhaps that's a definition of compromise?
[14:33] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, look, nobody is going to vote 1 keep, 2 repeal, 3 amend, or 1 repeal, 2 keep, 3 amend, are they?
[14:33] Beathan Vale: Ash -- actually - I considerd voting for keep as my second choice
[14:33] Beathan Vale: I saw trouble getting to amendment
[14:33] Oni Jiutai: But to say rank these option 1. Kill nobody, 2. Kill 1 person and 3. kill 500 people would produce a middle ground of killing somebody.
[14:33] Oni Jiutai: Extreme example, sorry.
[14:33] Ashcroft Burnham: If there's one thing that this poll tells us, it's that amendment is the *least* popular option :-)
[14:33] Beathan Vale: in the end I didn't becuase the JA is so awful -- but if the act had been just a little better, I would have
[14:34] Beathan Vale: No -- certainly not
[14:34] Beathan Vale: suspend was less popular as first choice
[14:34] Beathan Vale: Amend was clear favorite as compromise
[14:34] Ashcroft Burnham: We can't necessarily take that from the results.
[14:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Because we don't know the *scale* of the rankings.
[14:34] Oni Jiutai: But change something, is not really a recommendation.
[14:34] Beathan Vale: Why not -- the results clearly show that
[14:34] Michel Manen: I am not 100 % against JA amendments; far from it
[14:34] Michel Manen: BUT
[14:34] Ashcroft Burnham: I prefer A to B and B to C does not mean that A=3, B=2 and C=1.
[14:35] Michel Manen: onlt after it is tested in practice for an adequate period of tim
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: It might mean: A=1,000,000, B=10, C=1.
[14:35] Flyingroc Chung: oh dear, ash, that's an argument against the way we elect the RA :-)
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, it is.
[14:35] Michel Manen: during which time the PJSP can carry out its own work
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: That doesn't make it flawed.
[14:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's an argument even against democracy ;)
[14:35] Oni Jiutai: No - because different methods of sampling are suitable for different things.
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: (For elections, I favour a system whereby everybody has *ten* votes to distribute amongst the candidates as they please).
[14:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah similar to the Australian system?
[14:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, they actually rank people
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't know the Australian system.
[14:36] Michel Manen: based on the parctical experience of the JA being put into practice for a resonable amount i=of time
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: No, I prefer just having people distribute a block of votes.
[14:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I see.
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: It gives scales of preference, rather than merely an order.
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: Preference by order alone can be very misleading, as I've just explained.
[14:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, one day, we'll go Caledonian — "one man, one vote" — Desmond is the man, he has the vote :)
[14:36] Michel Manen: the PJSP can reach rational and reasonable conclusions on its advantages and shorcomings
[14:37] Ashcroft Burnham: So, people might think, "Keeping it is the only sane option. But, if not, amending it is a *tiny* bit better than repealing it".
[14:37] Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed, Michel.
[14:37] Michel Manen: and decide what amendments it shouls propose, if any, as a result
[14:37] Ashcroft Burnham: (And the converse, of course).
[14:37] Michel Manen: S I am entirely ready to compromise
[14:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm not so sure that is the purpoise of the PJSP...
[14:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *purpose
[14:37] Ashcroft Burnham: Let me find the relevant parts of the constitution to show that it is, Gwyn. One moement...
[14:38] Beathan Vale: Gwyn -- it isn't -- the PJSP assumes the Act and the Judiciary as is
[14:38] Michel Manen: BUT only if the inverestigtive procerss is coupled with mean ingful practical experience
[14:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Ash, what you're going to suggest is that now the PJSP is a legislative body as well? ;)
[14:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh my.
[14:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is getting worse and worse.
[14:38] Beathan Vale: this commission asks about whether things should be that way - -the PJSP can't really ask that
[14:38] Ashcroft Burnham: The PJSP has the power to: " to investigate, other than in response to a complaint, the performance and quality of service of the Courts of Common Jurisdiction and Court of Scientific Council, and to publish the findings of such an investigation, and recommendations (if any) in respect thereof; "
[14:38] You: 2 minutes to go.
[14:38] Ashcroft Burnham: No, Gwyn, it's an advisory and investigatory body.
[14:38] Michel Manen: Is this Commision a legislateive body?
[14:39] Beathan Vale: yes -- but not to discuss sthe structure or theory abstracted from performence
[14:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "the performance and quality of service " is, sorry to say, NOT the legislative aspects of it!
[14:39] Beathan Vale: we can't fix the car while driving it
[14:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Michel — not at all.
[14:39] Beathan Vale: even if we can fix the car while someone else is diriving it
[14:39] Ashcroft Burnham: "Performance" means "how it works in practice".
[14:39] Ashcroft Burnham: And that's ultimately what we're all talking about, isn't it?
[14:39] Beathan Vale: yes -- Ash -- and that is problem
[14:39] Michel Manen: only the RA can decided on the legilsative aspect of th judiciary
[14:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No — it means how well it performs :)
[14:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. quality
[14:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Anything that affects how it works in practice is encompassed in "performance".
[14:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Says who?
[14:40] Beathan Vale: Ahs - -no we are taling about the thoery and structure abstracted from pracrtice as well
[14:40] Ashcroft Burnham: What's the point of that, if it doesn't imapct on the practice?
[14:40] You: ok, ending the session

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

I have to say it has been a farce watching all the people in favour of the "keep" option [b:32n4dwea]suddenly[/b:32n4dwea] take a very strong opinion on the usability of the commission vote results after they were published. One cannot help but wonder what your opinion would have been had the results turned out to be in your favour.

It's amazing that you suddenly turn to someone who is in this context a totally random person, who just pops in and knows absolutely nothing about what is going on and "if he remembers his statistics well 15 out of 65 is not a representative sample". Simply because this person's arguments suit your case you elevate him to some insightful figure even if he has absolutely no idea what is going on or seem to know anything about how a commission works.

Well surprise - professional polling companies like Gallup perform surveys which they claim cover the entire US population on the basis of sample sizes smaller than 10,000. In terms of percentages this is 0,05% of the entire population. This commission has performed a survey which is based on the opinion of almost 20% of the population: A sample large enough for any statistician to work on.

The outcome of this survey is very clearly that a large majority of the commission's members want things to change with the judiciary act. This is the SECOND time that his has been demonstrated quantitatively with Justice's poll as the first indication.

The RA would do wisely to consider the point allocations as indicated by Jon Seattle's method at the Thursday meeting as the basis for their deliberations on what to do with the Judiciary.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Diderot, if you'd bothered to read the forums and attend the meetings, you would have found that I expressed grave doubts about the relevance of the questions asked [i:ispevhee]before[/i:ispevhee] the poll results were announced, and, indeed, before the poll was even taken.

The problem with the sample that we have is, as I have pointed out before, not just that it is small, but that it is not representative, as it is a self-selecting, rather than randomly selected group.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1jstlnfg]Diderot, if you'd bothered to read the forums and attend the meetings, you would have found that I expressed grave doubts about the relevance of the questions asked [i:1jstlnfg]before[/i:1jstlnfg] the poll results were announced, and, indeed, before the poll was even taken.

The problem with the sample that we have is, as I have pointed out before, not just that it is small, but that it is not representative, as it is a self-selecting, rather than randomly selected group.[/quote:1jstlnfg]I have read everything thank you. Thank you for blaming me for not attending any meetings. Unlike some other people apparently I have a life that does not permit me to re-schedule a busy Christmas week at a moment's notice in favour of discussing with some people who are able to present any fact as if it is in favour of their argument.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":1gjv0wnd]I have read everything thank you. Thank you for blaming me for not attending any meetings. Unlike some other people apparently I have a life that does not permit me to re-schedule a busy Christmas week at a moment's notice in favour of discussing with some people who are able to present any fact as if it is in favour of their argument.[/quote:1gjv0wnd]

If you have read everything, you have not read it very carefully. I was not blaming you for not attending the meetings, but misrepresenting the position. And I note that you have not addressed the issue about the representativeness of the sample.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

Just a note on taking the commission work, or any poll we can make in the forums, as a "representative sample" capable of foreseeing the behaviour of our whole citizenry.

Putting aside the fact that both in the commission and in the forum polls only are participating people willing to participate (which eliminate any possibility to give a fair result) , we don't have enough population to conduct an scientific poll. I know it is paradoxical, but it's easier to measure the behaviour of a 100,000 person population that one of 100 people.

This is (roughly) the reason.

I we have three apples, two of them green and the third red, if I choose one to know the predominant colour in my apples I have a one in three possibility to get the red one, and have the false impression that I have red apples, despite I have a sample of one third of the universe (of my apples)

But when I have 10,000 apples, two thirds of them green and one third red, if I take randomly only 500 (only a 5% of the total) of them there's a good chance (technically, a 4% of error margin) to get an accurate picture of the whole delivery of apples.

We have a population so small that to conduct a scientific survey (4% error margin, 95,5% of confidence) we need, given we are 60 citizens, the answer of 54 of them (randomly chosen).

The same poll, for any city or country beyond 100,000 people (technically and in this context, an infinite number), would need 625 answers.

Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Fernando --

Excellent analysis -- and similar to the point I was making in my number crunching of the poll in another meeting transcript thread.

However, I think the talk of "representative samples" is missing the point. The commission is a commission. It is not a poor-man's referendum. The poll results do not really tell us anything about the population as a whole. However, those results do tell us a lot about how 15 people who are following this debate closely think about the topic of debate. This fact, even if it only is about 15 people, is well -worth knowing. (Fifteen votes is enough to puts someone on the RA if we elected people based on personal voting.)

Further, as a way of taking the pulse of the Commission, so the Commission can give itself a direction for its further and future work, this poll worked and worked well. We now know that the Commission wants to reexamine and change the Judiciary Act. We know that the Commission would, for the most part, rather scrap the Act than live under it as is. This means that the Commission has a clear direction -- reaxamine the Act and make substantial modifications to it. We now need to determine where those modification should be and what they should be.


Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2grkbmml]Further, as a way of taking the pulse of the Commission, so the Commission can give itself a direction for its further and future work, this poll worked and worked well. We now know that the Commission wants to reexamine and change the Judiciary Act.[/quote:2grkbmml]

That is misconceived. The commission is not a thing that has its own mind: it is merely a collection of a number of minds, all of which have radically different opinions. Five of the commissioners (not including me) ranked "keep" as the first choice; five of them ranked "amend" as the first choice, and at least one of those definitely meant only minor amendments should be made. Five ranked "repeal" as their first choice, meaning that those who want substantive amendments to be made (four in total as first preferences) are a tiny minority of the 17-strong commission, and an even tinier minority of our population of at least 65. Subsequent preferences tell us very little because they are not weight ranked: a person may have a very strong preference for A over B, C, or D, but only minute preferences for B over C, and C over D.

[quote:2grkbmml]We know that the Commission would, for the most part, rather scrap the Act than live under it as is.This means that the Commission has a clear direction -- reaxamine the Act and make substantial modifications to it.[/quote:2grkbmml]

No, there is no reason to suppose that: only a tiny minority, far less than a third, can be shown to have considered at least potentially substantial amendment as their first choice.

[quote:2grkbmml]We now need to determine where those modification should be and what they should be.[/quote:2grkbmml]

No, we need to set the PJSP the task of monitoring judicial performance, and have it report in 3-6 months whether or not that performance is satisfactory, and, if not, what should be done about it.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”