On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in >> the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment >> either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or >> any method that gives people a chance to leave the contract before it's >> resolved. I think pretty much all popular contracts at the moment have >> such an agreement-safe mechanism. > > Well, unanimous consent isn't rules-defined; I'd say without objection > + a chance to review an amendment is equivalent to unanimous consent; > every party has implicitly consented to the change by not objecting to > it (or by leaving the contract).
It was fully and completely intended that "opportunity to review" means that there's a voting process/viewing where everyone sees the amendment (e.g. no "secret changes"), but not necessarily full consent. The difference between rights wording--consent (needed to enter the agreement) and "review" (needed to change the agreement)--is marked, was present from the beginning, and is direct evidence of the intent and appropriate reading. -Goethe
