Anthony: 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.
Anthony: IMO, this does not mean that every piece of code checked in
Hi,
Just to be clear,
Mark Rauterkus: FACT: We choose to work together on
something for the public domain.
Alain: Is "public domain" what we finally decided?
No. I should have said, "Public Domain-Like" I guess. I think that the
license is yet to be "finalized." But, in general,
I agree that we should delegate the non-fundamental power to a group using
majorities, and should refrain from using veto on non-fundamental issues.
But if we're going to be a partnership, and the partners in such are
liable, then we need power of veto.
I think we're getting closer to a
But in order to use ISDN, I'd have to use Bel Atlantic's
ISDN services -- and those are the (outrageous) prices I quoted.
Installation modem charges are not too bad; but "outrageous" hardly
begins to describe their monthly charge. Another "benefit" of
deregulation: you get screwed by Bell
It would work very much like the Australian and
British parlimentary system where a bill must be passed by two houses of
parliment.
Adrian,
Does either house of either Parliment require a unanimous vote to apporve
any action whatsoever? I'll bet it doesn't require a unanimous vote to
declare
I'm not suggesting that we
should change anything of course, lets see how things work with unanimity
first)
There is a problem with the "lets see how things work first" approach,
Adrian: If all partners but one decide it isn't working out and want to
remove the veto power from the partnership
you're mixing up partners and associates. There are
partner-level-decisions and associate-level-decisions. Partner-level must
be unanimous, while associate-level can be majority. [snip]. Does this
example convey a better picture?
Yes, Uli...however:
* In my previous posts I explained why I
Continuing my habit of posting usefull links, this one could be _quite_
usefull... remember those pixel problems we were discussing before:
http://hermes.terminal.at/
And another:
http://www.gaffer.org/ptc/
And, just for the heck of it (why we will not put GIF support in FreeCard!):
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.
Alain: Yes, but not on everything.
Anthony: Remember, we're all liable for everyone
else's actions
But in order to use ISDN, I'd have to use Bel Atlantic's
ISDN services
Anthony,
While you may have to deal with Bell Atlantic to install the ISDN line,
once it's in you should be able to go elsewhere for ISP services. I was
originally going to go with MCI, but found out (after opening the
Rob Cozens: Please forgive my ignorance... UFP is on
the list of things I'd like to know more about but
never found the time to do so, right there next to XOS
and Serf.
Alain: The UFP is in suspended-animation at this time.
Rob Cozens: My understanding is it is an attempt to
coordinate and
At 7:23 AM -0700 on 12/29/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
Giving each partner veto power creates the potential for a dictator who
says "Do it my way or I'll veto it."
More likely, a complete standstill. That's why we be careful which small
group is going to be the partners.
As far as resignation and
At 9:16 AM -0500 on 12/30/99, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
Hi,
Just to be clear,
Mark Rauterkus: FACT: We choose to work together on
something for the public domain.
Alain: Is "public domain" what we finally decided?
No. I should have said, "Public Domain-Like" I guess. I think that the
At 3:00 PM -0800 on 12/29/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
Someone: The action would be to delegate the power to
certain person(s) who would retain that power under
conditions so-and-so (probably 'so long as there is no
objection from any partner'), and operate under
procedures so-and-so, and unamity
At 5:16 PM -0700 on 12/29/99, Rob Cozens wrote:
I'll bet my
favorite telephone spammers at ATT can quote you a much better price than
your Baby Bell.
I donno. I guess I'll have to bug ATT :) [Wow! A first! Bugging the phone
company instead of them bugging you!]
Things where there might need to be 100% partner agreement.
1. To close the organization.
2. To shorten the period of open polls for voting.
3. ???
I agree, these are things partners do. "partner-level" as I called it in a
previous post.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
Can one obtain it without buying a compiler -- i.e., can one download it
from MicroSoft? I'd check, but after the last M$ incident, I decided to
blackhole MicroSoft to avoid all temptation :)
There is a cygwin and a djgpp(?) for windows, we should allow them to be used.
Hi,
this must be
Alain: You were an Internet server on a serial line?
Performance was good? How did you handle the dynamic
IP addressing so as to maintain the same URL for your
server?
Thank god, no! I'm just doing dial-up and surfing via an ISDN adapter
hokked to my Mac via the serial port.
1. The Internet
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,
If you and Uli want to tell me every partner has a veto power and no one
is a dictator but some person appointed unanimously by the partners can
make decisions in spite of another partner's objections, OK.
Hi,
if I appeared to say that, I guess my English is even worse than I
believed. I'm
20 matches
Mail list logo
