A partner in a vehicle is entitled to a number of nights each year at the property that vehicle owns, in proportion to contribution. The obvious way to describe this is as buying time somewhere pleasant. That description is wrong and the error is not cosmetic.

What goes wrong if it is the product

If nights are what is being sold, then the number of nights is the thing to maximise, and every night a partner takes is a night the property cannot sell. The interests of the partners and the interests of the vehicle then point in opposite directions.

Worse, it makes the position a prepayment. A prepayment for accommodation is a different regulated thing from a contribution to a body corporate, with different protections and a different tax treatment, and describing one as the other does not change which it is.

How the mechanism keeps it honest

A night released rather than taken is sold, and the revenue enters the waterfall at stage one like any other. A partner who takes nothing is therefore paid slightly more, and a partner who takes their full entitlement is paid slightly less. Neither is penalised; the arithmetic simply follows.

Precedence

Where more partners want the same dates than the property can hold, the partner who has drawn least that year goes first. Not the largest position, and not the earliest request. Weighted voting decides money; it does not decide who gets the last weekend in December.