>
>>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.
>
>THIS IS A GOOD THING! Remember, we're all liable for everyone else's
>actions in the partnership, and I, for one, will not be a part of ANY suhc
>agreement where I can have a decision I do not consent to forced upon me.
Mark's attitude stinks.
You could take a lesson from the Iroquois Confederation which had a similar problem with defining a stable league which protected the interests of all members. Their League was formed in the year 1000 AD and lasted without significant disruption until the 1700s (the council fire is still maintained in Onondaga, New York). In particular I am thinking of the rule that at a council meeting no action could be taken without unanimous consent BUT the council members were teamed into twos and threes according to their national interests (or "tribal" intersts if you prefer) AND each team must assign _one_ person to be their spokesperson at the council --- that person could speak only to present the agreed opinion of his co-equals. The council could not override any thoughtful dissent but neither could sachems (council members) blurt out ill-considered objections and idiosyncratic prejudices.
Here's how it worked:
All the sachems of the League, in whom originally was vested the entire civil power, were required to be of "one mind", to give efficacy to their legislation. Unanimity was a fundamental law. The idea of majorities and minorities were entirely unknown to our Indian predecessors.
To hasten their deliberations to a conclusion, and ascertain the result, they adopted an expedient which dispensed entirely with the necessity of casting votes. The founders of the Confederacy, seeking to obviate as far as possible altercation in council, and to facilitate their progress to unanimity, divided the sachems of each nation into classes, usually of two and three each.. No sachem was permitted to express an opinion in council, until he had agreed with the other sachem or sachems of his class, upon the opinion to be expressed, and had received an appointment to act as speaker for the class. Thus the eight Seneca sachems, being in four classes, could have but four opinions; the ten Cayuga sachems but four. In this manner each class was brought to unanimity within itself. A cross-consultation was then held between the four sachems who represented the four classes; and when they had agreed, they appointed one of their number to express their resulting opinion, which was the answer of their nation. The several nations having, by this ingenious method, become of "one mind" separately, it only remained to compare their several opinions, to arrive at the final sentiment of all the sachems of the League. This was effected by a conference between the individual representatives of the several nations; and when they had arrived at unanimity, the answer of the League was determined.
A corollary rule prescribed that if the League could not reach a consensus on an issue then each individual person could do as he saw fit in his individual or tribal relations but the League itself would maintain the status quo. Without consensus we make no change.
I offer this historical perspective because it's the only "rule by consensus" that I know of that actually worked. IMO democracy definitely does not work. I think that the possible applications of the Iroquois approach to your partnership agreement are obvious. It tends to not work unless you have a warrior/leader in the first instance who is so powerful that everyone wants to follow him. Fortunately you have the Great Freecard Warrior.
--
Garry Roseman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tech Writer & Freelance Programmer
Memphis, TN USA
