Hi All,
>unanimous vote by
>partners.
Yikes. That type of voting charter is often called a consensus, or a strict
consensus vote to be more exact. IMNSHO that type of voting policy is not
worthy. In the real world, a strict consensus vote is ugly. I feel strongly
about this observation.
There are other, more creative, more democratic, more economical ways to
make decisions by an organization rather than the one person and one-vote
method, either for a majority or for a strict consensus. Often what happens
with a consensus -- the wheels of progress get stuck. Furthermore, the
harder decisions don't get rendered.
As an alternative, a percentage vote could be put into place as part of the
charter for the "membership" who has the right to vote.
Even with this discussion of the name, OpenKard, WildCard, Public Card,
etc,. etc., --- an percentage vote would be one of the very best ways to
select the name. It would also help in selecting out the top choices as
well. Case in point: Say I like one option to 0% -- but three other other
options equal --- then I'd split my 100% vote to 0, 33, 33, 34 percent. In
a two-way decision, if a voting member does NOT care one way or the other
about the outcome, that person can vote 50-50 -- and then leave the bulk of
the weight of the vote to be determined by those who care greatly about that
specific issue. In this way, voters can vote percentages of support for
various choices.
We could also say that a specific percent vote of some higher percentage
(say 75%) would be necessary to get a major element changed, -- example:
allowing for a new partner to join the ranks.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
