When they call, DEMAND that they put you on their do not call list.
Thanks Anthony, I'll do just that.
Rob Cozens, CCW
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John
$250/mo (for unlimited -- otherwise I'd be killed by connect time charges)
Who's your ISP, Anthony?
If one pays twelve months in advance PacBell charges less than $20/month
(plus line charges) for unlimited ISDN connection (I know, it used to be
limited to 30 B channel hours; but that changed
All decisions and agreements made by the partnership are to be by unanimous
vote of the partners. That is, each partner shall have the power of veto.
IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in most recieve
unanimous consent, but rather that agreeing on the person(s) to decide on
Anthony, et al:
Your message was SO timely! I just recieved my third solicitation form
ATT in a week. I told the caller I wished no further contact from ATT
and asked if she could arrange that or should I speak with her supervisor.
She said it was a done deal. If that's true, I owe you
>At 3:08 PM -0500 on 12/28/99, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
>
>>Section 11: Voting
>>
>>All decisions and agreements made by the partnership are to be by unanimous
>>vote of the partners. That is, each partner shall have the power of veto.
>
>THIS IS A GOOD THING! Remember, we're all liable for everyone
Anthony: Alain, it's far more than five hours and its
still not back up.
Alain: It's going to take me 24 hours after all.
What can I say!
Anthony: Curious what went wrong. Run out of CD-R's?
Alain: The fragmentation of the disk was so severe
that it was impossible to defragment the disk with
Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve
and it only requires one dissenter to bog down the
process. Each participant is, in effect, given the
power of veto.
Anthony: Which is a very good thing when each
participant is legally liable for the actions decided
on.
Alain: We have been
Alain: We are talking about Unanimity. We are NOT
talking about Consensus. Consensus is not a synonym
for Unanimity.
Anthony: Alain, let's go to the dictionary. Today's
dictionary is: Merriam-Webster's online WWWebster
dictionary. Today's definition is:
consensus = 1 a : general agreement
Uli:
k 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% of it. It's to dangerous. Every
*partner* needs the right to veto.
Anthony:
IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in most recieve
unanimous consent,
Getting to the basics,
Other have stated, (I'm in disagreement)
In my
humble opinion, we need to be unanimous on the
fundamentals, and we can settle for majorities of
varying degrees for the less fundamental issues.
Can you detail all the "fundametals" in full view in advance? I think I
>Anthony: So, yes it is a synonym for unamity.
I'll see your Merriam-Webster's and raise a Funk Waganalls:
"unanimous: ... showing or resulting from the assent of all concerned"
[emphasis mine]
If you want to tell me "consensus" is a synonym for unanimity, OK.
If you and Uli want to tell
Mark Rauterkus: Other have stated (I'm in
disagreement)
Alain: In my humble opinion, we need to be unanimous
on the fundamentals, and we can settle for
majorities
of varying degrees for the less fundamental issues.
Mark Rauterkus: Can you detail all the "fundamentals"
in full view ...
Some points from Rob where super-majority votes are needed,
"Actions by the partnership to:
* Remove a partner
* Add a partner
* Amend the partnership agreement
* Incur contractual debt
* Enter into an agreement with other parties
require a 70%
Hi,
When I say, "STRICT CONSENSUS" that also means UNAMINITY. Sure, I give into
the notion that a soft consensus is possible without 100% agreement. A
"strict consensus" is NOT the same as a non-strict consensus, or plain old
consensus.
I don't mean to split hairs. I do welcome the
At 8:40 PM +0100 on 12/28/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
Oh. I thaught it was a whole application framework? I'm sayign that using
GTK in a free (speech, not beer) product would be better than MFC, because
the first is legal for us to distribute, whereas the second I'm sure we
can't distribute.
Hi,
At 4:33 PM -0700 on 12/28/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
Uli:
k 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% of it. It's to dangerous. Every
*partner* needs the right to veto.
Anthony:
IMO, this does not mean that every piece of
At 7:06 AM -0700 on 12/28/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
All decisions and agreements made by the partnership are to be by unanimous
vote of the partners. That is, each partner shall have the power of veto.
IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in most recieve
unanimous consent, but
At 2:22 PM -0800 on 12/28/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
Alain: I suggest that you enroll in a university
course, and use their Internet infrastructure, for
free !
Not having yet graduated from high school, this could be problematic :(
At 8:54 PM +0100 on 12/28/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
(I'd be very interested in what ended this system in 1700).
An army, I believe. America's history is not that great, either.
Things where there might need to be 100% partner agreement.
snip 2-item list
I think this is fundamentaly the wrong approach when we've got to take on
liability for other's actions. Instead of building a list of things which
require 100% approval, build a listf things which do not. And that
At 4:24 PM -0800 on 12/28/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Alain: Exactly! I particularly like this definition
of consensus because it conveys the spirit of what I
mean when I use the term consensus.
Maybe I should look up solidarity
Anyway, I'd just
Mark Rauterkus: The removal of a partner thing... #1.
So, someone wants to quit. ... Does that someone need
to get all to agree before the "retirement" can take
effect?
Alain: Same point that I made.
Mark Rauterkus: #2. One should be able to NOT be a
partner by one's own choice. No vote needed.
Mark Rauterkus: First off, some attribution to me has
been off the mark.
Alain: I take rigorous care not to make any mistakes
in this regard, but some slips get through from time
to time.
Mark Rauterkus: I didn't write the Section 11: Voting
part. I did just requoted it from the draft on the
THIS IS A GOOD THING! Remember, we're all liable for everyone else's
actions in the partnership, and I, for one, will not be a part of ANY suhc
agreement where I can have a decision I do not consent to forced upon me.
IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in most recieve
$125 connection charge
$150-$350 ISDN modem
$250/mo (for unlimited -- otherwise I'd be killed by connect time charges)
$30 home install kit (could probably do without)
$50 ethernet card (Mac hardware is outrageous, too)
Possibly a router, too.
Well, if you include an ethernet card and modem in
A
democracy cannot vote to become an dictatorship, for
example.
Uli might know history a little better on this one. I'm sure he can tell
you about the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Hi,
it has to be stated. It's a much-debated part of many constitutions
whether to require democracy or not, but
Oh. I thaught it was a whole application framework? I'm sayign that using
GTK in a free (speech, not beer) product would be better than MFC, because
the first is legal for us to distribute, whereas the second I'm sure we
can't distribute.
Hi,
We needn't distribute MFC. Every Windows
27 matches
Mail list logo
