At 3:00 PM -0800 on 12/29/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>Someone: The action would be to delegate the power to
>certain person(s) who would retain that power under
>conditions so-and-so (probably 'so long as there is no
>objection from any partner'), and operate under
>procedures so-and-so, and unamity would be required on
>that delegation.
>
>Alain: Why is unanimity required in this case?
Because in the end, the partners are the ones responsible.
>
>Alain: What are we delegating? Allow a proxy to vote
>for us in our absence(s)? Where work is concerned,
>people contribute what they wish, in the manner that
>suits them. Partners are not bosses.
We're delegating things like who decides which code patches to check in,
offical webmaster (perhaps on a section-by-section basis), and so on.
>Why don't we vote in the open and perhaps even
>assume that no one will steal our vote. How likely is
>it that someone will spoof us, given that there is no
>money involved?
Ummm... as we become more popular, I'd say the chances approach 100%.
>Alain: I substantially agree with this formulation,
>except to say that partner-level decisions don't
>necessarily have to be unanimous. Only the really
>fundamental issues require unanimity. However, given
>the probable difficulties of evaluating what is
>fundamental versus what is not, I might have to accept
>your formulation after all.
At outset, we could say all requires unamity. And then, issue by issue, we
could, by unanimous consent, make an issue no longer require unamity. But
I'd suggest we instead allow regular votes to go, but reserve the power of
veto, to be used sparingly.
>Rob Cozens: There is a problem with the "lets see how
>things work first" approach.
>
>Alain: I have to agree with Rob on this one. We need
>to look ahead a little to avoid the mistakes that we
>can. And we need to do it now, while we are still a
>small humble group that gets along quite well.
Remember, the partners will always be this same small group.
