One is the hardcore ownership.. the other is the loose status ownership.
This is why some people do not like the word owner.. because they like the loose status ownership..

SO I will make it perfectly clear on what I am talking about..because this is a Jerome decision about what kind of ownership he is going to give..if he gives any.

My take is...

IF JEROME GIVES A HARDORE (STANDARD NAME) OWNERSHIP then my opinion is:

a) yes, write

b) yes, if asked directly..by default someone chosen.. but if he can or he is given the chance.. yes, with full rights

c) Yes with one vote. 2/3 of ownership to agree

d) Yes, vote open to new owner 2/3 to agree

e) Yes, unconditionally on money check and say.

f) Yes, but I do not think it really matters too much.. normally you need advise.. the one that gives the advice is the relevant one.. so choosing a technician in charge.. yes a vote (2/3) after that.. it willprobably just implementing

g) Yes. 2/3

Jerome should have a bigger weight of vote..but no veto power.

Now IF JEROME CHOSES a LOOSE OWNERSHIP STATUS (this is more than purely contributing with some money which would give none of the rights above but maybe other that we discussed)

a) The owners should decide the frontpager..So no for the everyday ones.. BUT MUST have the right to eventually write in the front-page with a very fast-track process. Fast-track submission to other ownership and fast vote (a lack of vote would be a yes). Jerome MUST have veto power.

b)No in out of the blue situations, but YES with a fast-track (submission to other owner, vote 1/2 majority, and Jerome not vetoing the letter) for anything written to a newspaper. More consideration and time for radio or TV opportunities should be given... in a word.. some training if the situation appears. I think it is more relevant to decide who looks for the radio and TV interviews or what kind of approach is given to promotion... ANd on this issue I would say that owners should have a voice adn be heard.. and vote.. 2/3 of owners should be able to veto just as Jerome have. SO, right to propose, right to vote and right to veto if 2/3 agree to veto.. no matter if Jerome would want to do it, owners would be right to kill any particular promotion. If they do not have this ability I would not call it ownership in any loose sense.

3. Yes, decide. vote. Jerome has veto and 2/3 to agree.

4. Consultation, yes. Final call Jerome.

5. verify yes.. always , we are open community: Decide.. well, this is basically like the promotion. Jerome veto power but also 2/3 veto majority.

6. Consultation, yes: Final call Jerome

7. This is the most difficult one actually. Consultation for sure. BUt should 2/3 of owners have right to veto this.. I am not sure... I dunno.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude