[WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

[Michael Snow]

James D. Forrester wrote:

>James D. Forrester wrote:
>  
>
>>Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the
>>ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong
>>believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given
>>how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to
>>write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case.
>>This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced
>>that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).
>>    
>>
>For those playing especial, close attention, yes, I missed the word
>"not" from there - that is, this should have read "we don't *not* sit en
>banc".
>  
>
Oh, I just figured that maybe "en banc" meant something different in the 
British system. Why that might have been the case I'm not sure, but 
since the term is actually French, who knows. (Yes, the law is equal 
parts medieval French and Latin.)

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the Arbitration Committee. To the newly 
chosen especially, but also to the already sitting, who hopefully will 
absorb some renewed vigor from their colleagues. Be thankful that a 
knowledge of English is generally sufficient, and try not to lapse to 
much into Wiki-ish like IAR, CSD, and the like.

--Michael Snow