> From: Stepanossov, Kirill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sorry for noise here...
Its not noise.
>
> but it looks both Berin and Stephen are right - the existence
> of veto as
> well as majority voting can be abused and both your justification are
> correct. Well... one of you is optimistic the other one is
> pessimistic with
> regards to "ability" of Avalon community and its developers... so why
> wouldn't you just look at what/who you have now in board and
> then based on
> that knowledge come to compromise conclusion... or just assign a
> person("judge"?) who should decide if the veto is valid in arguments ?
Third option is that we agree on 2/3 majority.
I am against blind majority (i.e. with 4 for and 3 against a motion
gets passed even if the objections are really good and showstoppers).
Steven is against unanimous (i.e. with 34 for and 1 against a
motion gets vetoed even if the objection is poorly stated).
With 2/3 majority and a quorum of 9 people, if you have 6 for and
3 against the motion gets passed. I also stipulated that the voting
time is open for a whole week. That leaves room for the nay sayers
to voice their opinion and possibly sway the vote, although at that
point it is more likely that the nay sayers vote will be swayed. It
also leaves room to have time to think thoroughly about a proposal
and have a good feeling after the voting is closed.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
