>Anthony: 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.
>
>Anthony: IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in most
recieve
>unanimous consent, but rather that agreeing on the person(s) to decide on
>and check in that code does. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Adrian: And to decide on who to delegate duties to, we can still have a
majority vote to select one person, but then submit them to the partners
for final approval. It would work very much like the Australian and
British parlimentary system where a bill must be passed by two houses of
parliment. (The american equivalent is congress to president, but with a
lot of presidents). I think we can make this work.
Adrian: The other point (which is suggested by the above) is that we can
vote to make certain issues not require a unanimous vote but every
partner would have to agree to that change. (I'm not suggesting that we
should change anything of course, lets see how things work with unanimity
first).
Paul Sutton Phone
3 Bream Street home phone +61 7 4777 8517
TAYLORS BEACH 4850 home computer fax +61 7 4477 9734
Queensland Australia (phone home # first to enable fax)
Head of Mathematics Department work phone +61 7 4776 2433
Ingham State High School work fax +61 7 4776 1182
PO Box 869
INGHAM Q 4850
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
