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
At 7:23 AM -0700 on 12/29/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
Giving each partner veto power creates the potential for a dictator who
says "Do it my way or I'll veto it."
More likely, a complete standstill. That's why we be careful which small
group is going to be the partners.
As far as resignation and
Things where there might need to be 100% partner agreement.
1. To close the organization.
2. To shorten the period of open polls for voting.
3. ???
I agree, these are things partners do. "partner-level" as I called it in a
previous post.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve
and it only requires one dissenter to bog down the
process. Each participant is, in effect, given the
power of veto.
Anthony: Which is a very good thing when each
participant is legally liable for the actions decided
on.
Alain: We have been
Getting to the basics,
Other have stated, (I'm in disagreement)
In my
humble opinion, we need to be unanimous on the
fundamentals, and we can settle for majorities of
varying degrees for the less fundamental issues.
Can you detail all the "fundametals" in full view in advance? I think I
Things where there might need to be 100% partner agreement.
snip 2-item list
I think this is fundamentaly the wrong approach when we've got to take on
liability for other's actions. Instead of building a list of things which
require 100% approval, build a listf things which do not. And that
A
democracy cannot vote to become an dictatorship, for
example.
Uli might know history a little better on this one. I'm sure he can tell
you about the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Hi,
it has to be stated. It's a much-debated part of many constitutions
whether to require democracy or not, but
Rob: * I wonder if it is really necessary to have a
unanimous agreement on every issue?
Alain: Not necessarily.
Rob: IMNSHO, the need to be unanimous
is less than ideal as a standing policy.
Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve and
it only requires one dissenter to bog down
At 1:27 PM -0800 on 12/27/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve and
it only requires one dissenter to bog down the
process. Each participant is, in effect, given the
power of veto.
Which is a very good thing when each participant is legally liable for the
