On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >>> I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps? >>> >> I'd be fine with that. However, if we could allow this to go through >> and then you propose that as a separate change I would appreciate it. > > Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v) conflict?
Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you agree, in joining the contract, to be bound by the results of a majority vote, and provided the voting meets certain reasonable criteria (e.g. not held secretly from some members, etc.) you are agreeing that the (non-unanimous) voting process constitutes a "reasonable opportunity to review" that R101(v) requires. At least, that's the theory! -Goethe
