>> I have posted Eric's partnership agreement at:
>>
>>http://ufp.uqam.ca/opencard/pagreemnt.htm
Rob wrote:
> * I wonder if it is really necessary to have a unanimous agreement on every
> issue?
IMNSHO, the need to be unanimous is less than ideal as a standing policy.
>Does anyone know of organizations/partnerships that have this
> requirement?
I know of a few. One, a local planning forum, operates by a strict
consensus, and it is a crying pitty. It stinks.
Not that this is a big threat or anything, but I won't join any organization
that needs to operate from its charter by unanimous agreement. That is a
serious blunder to progress should it stay.
>And isn't it more or less appropriate depending on the number
> of partners.
IMHO, it is always not appropriate unless we are talking about a
husband-wife team. And, I'm already hitched.
>Achieving unanimity among five partners is perhaps more
> necessary (and doable) that achieving unanimity among twenty partners.
> Isn't a simple majority sufficient on minor issues and a 70-80% majority
> sufficient for major issues?
Yes. Both the majority and super-majority (for stated issues) vote return
works for me too.
Here is a snip of what was proposed on the site: ---
Section 11: Voting
All decisions and agreements made by the partnership are to be by unanimous
vote of the partners. That is, each partner shall have the power of veto.
Specifically
The partnership shall not be dissolved except by unanimous vote of all
partners.
The partnership shall not enter into any contract
The partnership shall not employ any person or pay for any contributions
made by any person
The partnership shall not distribute any software created without first
having created a licensing agreement. Such license must be approved by
unanimous vote of all partners.
�
--- end snip ----
Ta,
Mark R.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
