Hi,
When I say, "STRICT CONSENSUS" that also means UNAMINITY. Sure, I give into
the notion that a soft consensus is possible without 100% agreement. A
"strict consensus" is NOT the same as a non-strict consensus, or plain old
consensus.
I don't mean to split hairs. I do welcome the clarifications.
Bottom line for me... I hate the idea of a consensus for this group. I hate
the idea of needing unaminity as well. (Plus, yes, I know its only for
partner votes.)
The need for a super majority might work on very-tight areas if spelled out
in advance. Otherwise, a majority is great.
>> 1. To close the organization.
Alan, by all means, one of the mentions in the charter needs to be the
closing. To close an organization is a responsibility. One just can't
all-walk away from it, IMHO. To dissovle is different.
I ran into a recent bit of trouble on the local front when an old board all
resigned -- and at some time too, the board decided to close down the
operations of the non-profit. Headaches. The act of closing needs some
attention in the charter, sad to say, but true.
>> 2. To shorten the period of open polls for voting.
>
> Alain: Off-hand, this strikes me as little bit
> un-democratic, but I suppose we could act in this
> manner if the polling period becomes too long. Endless
> debate would indeed be counter-productive, especially
> if we stipulate that a strict unanimity is required,
> and hence allow ONE dissenter, for example, to hold up
> the whole process. That's why a majority/consensus is
> better than unanimity.
Case in point: We all get together. We have a meeting. We make lots of
decisions. We don't want each vote to be open for 2-3 weeks. We decide weeks
in advance that we will suspend the open-time-for voting for the weeks of
our meeting/vacation.
Mark R.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
