>Uli:
>>k 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.
>
>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. [Uli
>>agrees]
Rob,
you're mixing up partners and associates. There are
partner-level-decisions and associate-level-decisions. Partner-level must
be unanimous, while associate-level can be majority. Still, if an
associate-level decision touches the realm of the partner-level, partners
should be able to veto it. What code is to be used, is usually
associate-level, but if it includes possibly changing the license, it
becomes partner-level. Does this example convey a better picture?
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
