>I agree that we should delegate the non-fundamental power to a group using
>majorities, and should refrain from using veto on non-fundamental issues.
>
>But if we're going to be a partnership, and the partners in such are
>liable, then we need power of veto.
I think we're getting closer to a concensus, and I am willing to consider
veto; but I forsee big potential problems if it is not thought out well in
advance.
Example: Two very findamental issues...removing a partner and modifying the
partnership agreement. If every partner has a veto, the partner subject to
removal simply vetos the vote. Suppose a partner engages in an activity
the rest of the partners object to and the group decides to amend the
partnership agreement to prohibit such activity. Once again, the
"offending" partner can veto the action.
Giving each partner veto power creates the potential for a dictator who
says "Do it my way or I'll veto it." Requiring a 70-80% majority assures a
high level of concensus without allowing one partner to bring the project
to a hault. If a partner is so fundamentally opposed to a group action
that he/she can't accept the majority will, resignation from the
partnership is always an option.
Rob Cozens, CCW
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
