I had the pit-bull conflict, where 1 of the the 5 would instigate a dog fight by building doubt about two of original founders. He would call up the other two guys only to talk about how the original founders didn't do it right. The other two guys became so weak and confused, GAWD, it was a nightmare relationship. The project died, the money drained, what a great lesson in regards to making sure the team works well together, has the same intention re the project, and feels fairly rewarded.
"... the more founders you have, the worse disagreements you'll have. When there are just two or three founders, you know you have to resolve disputes immediately or perish. If there are seven or eight, disagreements can linger and harden into factions." -- How to Start a Startup
IMO, equal shares and consensus decision making go a long way in avoidance of a whole host of potentially fatal startup conflicts. And having a policy to openly discuss everything, which goes hand in hand with consensus decision making, creates a healthy forum to resolve conflicts before they blow up into unresolvable or annoying-to-resolve situations.
I agree with the transparency part, but I don't think the the "equal shares" concept is necessarily sound. It assumes that all founders are contributing equally which is not always the case.
What you are looking to do is make things equitable -- not equal.
The reason I left my previous start-up, the "camel-back-breaking" factor, was a lack of transparency among co-founders. I think a policy of intra-company transparency, or a policy to openly discuss everything, as you put it, is instrumental to avoiding co-founder problems.
