Hi,
What follows is the start of a new thread with "broad strokes." I'm looking
here at the forest, not the trees. I think some general talk is called for
now since the open pondering the first draft of the possible agreement.
To be honest: This conversation is still mud in my mind. I'm not able to see
the venture being successful, nor being able to change and grow. There are
still a slew of sticking points to the organizational structure. Sorry to be
a nay-sayer just now.
But, I do see a solution. I see a way that we can get "out of the woods." I
think I'm going to be able to present an alternative approach. But first,
.... here is a flash at where we are now.
> Someone: ... for the partnership it is important, as
> each one is liable to the other. We can't have 90% of
> the group decide over 10%. It's too dangerous.
> Every *partner* needs the right to veto.
Given above logic, ....
Every partner needs a veto.
WHY: To avoid danger.
But, if the organization is set-up so as to avoid all dangers, then is a
veto needed?
If all dangers can be eliminated, are partners even needed?
Without dangers, how can each partner be liable to the other?
Even then, if there is some REMOTE liability to the partners -- I still feel
it is okay to have 90% (or even 51%) of the partners decide with votes for
the fate of the group.
> Anthony: Remember, we're all liable for everyone
> else's actions in the partnership, and I, for one,
> will not be a part of ANY such agreement where I can
> have a decision I do not consent to forced upon me.
I'm okay with majority rule decisions being forced upon me. I'm okay mainly
because the decisions are going to be of no financial consequence. Right?
> Alain: If a decision/vote is taken that exposes any or
> all of the FreeCard partners to any liability
> whatsoever and/or changes the Partnership Agreement,
> then this decision/vote must be unanimous.
One can't engage in life with the goal of doing things yet without ever
having any liability whatsoever. That said... we can't be stupid. But, what
I see in the above thought is just impossible.
I feel that this endeavor (most of all, being a partner) is NOT for the
timid.
Here is what I'm thinking ..... (I'm an idealist.)
No Liabilities for partners at the outset and forever more here.
Without any liabilities, then majority rule works.
Should any liabilities be desired at a future date, then other
organizations should be created.
I've got more to say on this matter. But not tonight.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
