> Eric: Because some people will have different levels of commitment and interest. > Also metaCard might not want to distribute its engine to everyone? (Scott?) > Like I have said before, we can work out ways for this to be interesting to > metaCard as a charitable deduction, and I am happy to do the research needed > on that. Adrian: MetaCard definitely don't want to give everyone a MetaCard licence and in fact they once suggested a two-level system - I haven't heard anything against this system. > Eric: So, what do you think? Supermajority decisions? Involving associates and > partners? or just partners? I am indifferent and will draft exactly what you > wish so long as it serves the best interests of this project. Adrian: I would like to see majority votes as consensus certainly isn't working - we gained consensus on the licencing issue (at one stage, I thought) and still wanted to put it to a vote, also we never seem to know when we have a consensus. So we need to vote and we're not going to get everyone to vote on every issue. I would then suggest a simple majority vote with each member getting 1 vote each. I would suggest that only partners get to vote, unless the partners decide to open up the vote to associates as well. There would of course be a third type which is open to all - that's more of an opinion poll though. Are there any arguments against this? Adrian Sutton ************************************************************** Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 3714 4649 Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow. -- Mark Twain. **************************************************************
