I would very much encourage the norm here to be, "If you feel the need to veto something, explicitly start a double-crux."
Any time a veto happens, this inherently means there is a disagreement that hasn't been resolved. The bottleneck for Double Crux (CX²) seems to be "explicitly identifying moments in-the-moment where it would be good to use CX²". Veto situations are an ideal moment.
nods, definitely want to encourage discussion. However, people may not want their reasons for vetoing widely known, or even the fact that it was them who vetoed someone. The structure has to be carefully designed. I have a vague plan, but best not go into that level of zoom until the team is together, I think.
I would very much encourage the norm here to be, "If you feel the need to veto something, explicitly start a double-crux."
Any time a veto happens, this inherently means there is a disagreement that hasn't been resolved. The bottleneck for Double Crux (CX²) seems to be "explicitly identifying moments in-the-moment where it would be good to use CX²". Veto situations are an ideal moment.
nods, definitely want to encourage discussion. However, people may not want their reasons for vetoing widely known, or even the fact that it was them who vetoed someone. The structure has to be carefully designed. I have a vague plan, but best not go into that level of zoom until the team is together, I think.
Of course if that doesn't work for whatever reason, I'd be happy with there being veto powers anyway.