>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. (lots of interesting stuff snipped)
Hi,
I agree that this consensus thing is certainly important, and I think for
the partnership it is important, as each one is liable to the other. We
can't have 90% of the group decide over 10% of it. It's to dangerous. Every
*partner* needs the right to veto.
OTOH, maintaining the status quo is simply impossible in some situations,
and again very dangerous if the status quo is a dangerous situation that
requires action (I'd be very interested in what ended this system in 1700).
I think we need to clarify that this consensus applies to partners, while
associates should work with majority rule, which is enforced by the
partners if it doesn't pose a danger to them. Since the partners are the
ones who are liable when something goes wrong, it is only just that they
have the last say.
BTW - I see "freelance programmer" in your footer. What kind of
programming do you do? Interested in joining in? Or unable to? (I know how
short time is...)
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
