No sentencing guideline system should require judges to relinquish any of their sentencing authority; rather, they should share the responsibility for setting sentencing policy among themselves, with assistance from other experienced decisionmakers such as parole board members. Any guideline methods should provide for the establishment of both decision rules (general sentencing policy) and procedures (to be followed when 'policy' is not applied in any specific case). Further, the processes should have the capacity to change in relation to data which the system itself generates. Discretion is not abolished, but it is exercised under accountability to colleagues. Information generated by the procedures is necessary to provide the means for review of the system's working and for the system to evolve or adapt as a continuous process. If the public is informed about sentencing policy, the sentencers can be expected to be less vulnerable when a dramatic case causes them to depart from precedent. Three references are provided.