Mark makes some good comments to which I will reply. Al seems to just want to cast aspersions (maybe because he feels his own ventures threatened?). However, I will respond to each in turn.
Al, you have clearly never been an entrepreneur. Businesses have start-up costs for which the founders contribute cash to cover. This is the point of equity: the founders provide the entity with start-up funds (capital) in return for equity (a secondary claim on the assets of the firm). I have been in software development for decades as well, and been an entrepreneur four times. In no case have I ever seen a start-up begin with the founders not putting up some of their own money. Confidence in skill is not the issue. Members will not be accepted if we do not think they can produce high quality products or act as contributing members of the organization. As far as educating the members on the legal and fiduciary responsibilities of being a member of an LLC, I intend to give a basic education, but leave it up to the individual to take responsibility for him/herself. Yes, there are other Android resources out there, but the idea here is that we will be a cohesive team, developing a proprietary set of code which the entire team will understand and not have to explain to some outside person for help. Mark, thank you for your well-reasoned post. What I am proposing is similar to a co-op idea... but you're right, it's for profit. The difference is that the founding developers, who I am recruiting via this thread, will be the ones to share in that profit. I should not have used the term "founders" when I referred to myself and my associates who are trying to lead the effort to organize this, because everyone who gets involved now will be a founder and owner. Everyone will share equally. Let me repeat that... EVERYONE WILL SHARE EQUALLY. My earlier use of the "founders" term was misleading and I apologize. Anyone that joins now WILL be a founder. Does this satisfy your concerns? On Oct 18, 5:01 am, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Replying to OP via Al's post to keep this on -discuss: > > > AdroitAndroid wrote: > >> The application fee was meant to provide the LLC with startup cash, > > If you were proposing a sellers cooperative (e.g., Ocean Spray for > cranberries), I doubt anyone would be complaining. That's because co-ops > have specific structures and laws. Moreover, they are not-for-profits > themselves, meaning they cannot hold onto much in the way of retained > earnings and profits from sales must flow out to the owners. > > >> Note that AdroitAndroid is not an agency. You won't just be talent > >> farmed out for corporate profit. You will be AN OWNER who SHARES in > >> the profit. > > Usually, when a startup starts up, it recruits a set of founders, who > then jointly decide things like business structure, ownership > percentages, rough-cut plans for profit distribution, and the like. In > your case, it sounds like you're dictating terms to some set of limited > partners, employees, or contractors. > > If you want to create a for-profit LLC, that is fine and is highly > commendable. I own one myself, and in the past have owned another > outright and been a founding partner in a third. However, you will get > less skepticism if you treat this like a normal startup and recruit in > founders, rather than whatever you consider this second tier of > participants. > > >> The founders of this organization are experienced technologists, > >> entrepreneurs, and management consultants who have strong professional > >> credentials and who can provide professional references for anyone who > >> has doubts about credibility. > > IMHO, a virtual corporation of the type you describe should have zero > non-founders. That's zero, zilch, zippo, bupkes. The founders may have > varied backgrounds, or they may all do the same thing (e.g., > programming) and plan to contract out everything else, but they're all > roughly equals. > > I don't get the sense that's what you're doing. It feels like there is a > caste of founders and a caste of workers, where the caste of founders > has already been determined. > > Again, if you want to create a virtual corporation, that's perfectly > fine. But you will get less skepticism if you come across like a peer > humbly recruiting other peers. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > > Android Training on the Ranch! -- Mar 16-20, > 2009http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule.shtml --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
