Veto rule

[Ivan Denisov]

Some decisions can destroy the Center part by part.

I am suggesting to add "veto" option to each poll about single statements. If some members will want to say "this decision will make me so sad, that BlackBox Framework Center will lose any sense for me" they will use this option. And if we will see 20% veto, we should not use simple majority rule and listen for this minor group of members for continue discussion to find compromise solution.

[DGDanforth]

Essentially you want to increase the weight of one's vote by using a veto. That seems to me to be unfair to the other members. To counter balance that one might have 'strongly agree' which has more weight than just agree. But now we are in a strange tug of war. I really think that equal weighting of everyone's vote is the fair thing to do. If one does not agree with vote they can vote no or abstain (not vote within the time line). The time to object to a measure is BEFORE it comes to a vote. One can then argue strongly against the measure and attempt to sway other members to your cause.

-Doug

[Ivan Denisov]

Doug, I think that you misunderstood my motivation. I do not want to lose somebody from Center. For example, I worry about Peter leaving the Center. I am warring about how Rene stop communication with Center after repository voting. Also I think that Oberon Spirit is something that should be avoided from the majority inertness. Sometime, few persons can said "stop, we are going wrong way. Lets continue discussion, we can find better solution of the problem". And I am ready to respect their caution. Also I think, that it should not be "one member veto", that should be minimum two or three persons.

[DGDanforth]

Ivan, I understand your concern and agree with it. You are in closer touch with the members than I currently am.

My goal is to foster harmony, cooperation and agreement between the members.
So, to the members reading this, what gripes do you have? It is best to get them out in the open.

-Doug

[ReneK]

Ivan,

sorry for going incommunicado for some time. No, my intention is not to take my marbles and play elsewhere, at least not without due notice .

Doug,

I think there is a difference between abstention from the voting process (i.e. not voting) and voting "abstain", as described elsewhere.

A "not voting" abstention is equal to an unintialised variable, while the abstain vote is initialized, but not with a voting value, so to speak.


All,
I do not think a veto rule would be wise, not even in the cases presented by Ivan. If my opinions are not heard in a way that I can not tolerate it anymore, would it really be fair to force the group to my opinions? Wouldn't it be better for me to move on and a new center member is added?

[Ivan Denisov]

This question did not find support and should be forgotten in archive.