This is a portion of the veto-related text from the Ranger portion of the Charter, which Prim cited in another thread. The idea of a veto for ToE access seems more acceptable to me now that I see a precedent of sorts in the charter:
While volunteers are listed as new entrants, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit.
If the concern or objection involves a serious violation of by-laws for which a formal action of some kind is required, then the volunteer will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the issue is resolved. The Mayor and current Rangers together will inform the volunteer immediately, attempt to verify the merit of the accusation insofar as possible, and if it has merit they will initiate whatever procedure is called for in the by-laws. If exonerated, the volunteer may enter the pool of full Rangers when training is complete. If restrictions are placed on the volunteer as a result of the procedure, they will not enter the pool of full Rangers until the by-laws allow them to do so.
If the concern or objection involves matters of courtesy, or unfamiliarity with certain forums, or anything else affecting only the comfort level of the members, the Mayor or an appropriate Ranger will explain the problem to the volunteer as tactfully as possible and suggest ways that their posting might become more “visible and contributory†before they enter the pool of full Rangers.
The Mayor will retain record of these concerns and objections and make sure that any full Ranger who is coaching the volunteer knows of them as well. When the volunteer expresses his/her readiness to enter the pool of Rangers, including their correction of any prior deficiency, and the full Ranger who has been coaching them agrees, the Mayor will send an email to any member who has raised a prior objection and ask permission to lift the objection, explaining what has been done to rectify the problem. If the member still objects, they must explain why and the issue will be revisited as before. If no response is received within seven days, the objection will be lifted and the volunteer may enter the pool of full Rangers. The pool of full Rangers will be posted prominently.
I think the veto for access to ToE should be modeled after the Ranger veto.
You'll note that for the Rangers, if a member has a concern or objection it must be emailed to the Administrator account so as to be considered for merit by the Mayor and Rangers. The member is then informed about the objection, given opportunity for official exoneration (if the objection concerns a violation of by-laws), and supported and encouraged in the effort to change their objectionable behavior.
Here is what I see of value in the above system:
1. The process isn't insular. Persons other than the accuser assess the objections for merit.
2. There is a balance between respect for the objector's concerns and the rights of the person objected to, to know why they have been objected to (I believe they have the right to know who the objector is as well), and to respond to the objection.
3. There is accountability and responsibility that comes with the right to object to someone being a Ranger -- one must communicate the reasons for the objection and be known (at least to the neutral parties) as the person objecting.
I believe these principles must be incorporated into the veto mechanism for ToE if it is not to be inconsistent with certain principles and provisions of our charter.
Speaking of the charter, these are the portions that I believe would have to be amended or removed in order to accommodate the suggestions I've seen thus far in ToE (which admittedly I read through very quickly), emphasis added:
We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness.
Transparency: The atmosphere of fairness required to foster the free exchange of ideas requires that judgment regarding board behavior be the shared responsibility of all members. Administration and enforcement of by-laws is done as fairly and openly as possible. We see value in exercising power and dealing with challenges publicly, rather than behind the scenes, because this safeguards against the undermining of our principles by privately-made decisions.
Self-Governance: No member of board77 is more important than any other member, and no single member or group of members ever holds absolute power.
A. You have the right:
To post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.
¶3: Eligibility to Access the Age Restricted Forum
A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from a Ranger.