Mentors have to counsel apprentices so they should only pick problem briefs that they have some familiarity with (if not the precise jurisdiction). This raises the question of how should
1) Problem briefs be screened? (to remove redundant or spurious issues already answered);
2) Match apprentices to a problem brief (somewhat challenging but not herculean);
3) Make sure the problems are relevant and also of interest to mentors
Some thoughts
allow mentors to nominate number of briefs proportionate to log(hours committed) x scale / difficulty;
sponsors can pay for issues - scaled by the difficulty of legal research (no free lunch)
apprentices only see problem briefs appropriate to their skill level
Which means some effort needs to go into rating the legal engineering competency required to complete. The number of problems should be self-regulating as a Do-ocracy people won't put forward more issues than they have time committed.
Mentors have to counsel apprentices so they should only pick problem briefs that they have some familiarity with (if not the precise jurisdiction). This raises the question of how should 1) Problem briefs be screened? (to remove redundant or spurious issues already answered); 2) Match apprentices to a problem brief (somewhat challenging but not herculean); 3) Make sure the problems are relevant and also of interest to mentors
Some thoughts
Which means some effort needs to go into rating the legal engineering competency required to complete. The number of problems should be self-regulating as a Do-ocracy people won't put forward more issues than they have time committed.