Ok, if we effectively can insulate liability through a "use at your own risk" license and through a partnership agreement which is very limited in scope, why have two levels of partners? Because some people will have different levels of commitment and interest. Also metaCard might not want to distribute its engine to everyone? (Scott?) Like I have said before, we can work out ways for this to be interesting to metaCard as a charitable deduction, and I am happy to do the research needed on that. The unanimity requirement would apply only to a decision to change the actual partnership agreement - not decisions made pursuant to (i.e. according to) the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement has to be basically unchangeable to prevent someone from later taking over and, well, stealing the freeware. Since the partnership can't do anything (or at least damn little) pecuniary, it is already an unattractive target for a takeover. If the partnership agreement is unchangeable, game set and match, no matter how widely openKard is diffused no one would want to break their teeth trying to convince any where from thirty to 100 persons to unanimously agree to change the partnership agreement. As for decisions made _by the partnership and in pursuant of the partnership - they can be made by weighted voting (Marks suggestion), by a simple majority (51%), by a supermajority (2/3) by unanimity, or by haircolor. Simplified, the decisions to be made by the partnership can be made in ANY way you wish. That said, I need to know what that method would be. Which is really up to you all. I need your input because I am not going to spend a day or two of mental concentration drawing up what i envision only to see it changed repeatedly, frustrating everyone and perhaps bogging things down. Everyone seems really cool, motivated, and cooperative, so I doubt there would be any problem. But, really, even anarchists need some organisation in order to avoid being eaten. So, what do you think? Supermajority decisions? Involving associates and partners? or just partners? I am indifferent and will draft exactly what you wish so long as it serves the best interests of this project. I look forward to hearing from you! >unanimous vote by >partners. Yikes. That type of voting charter is often called a consensus, or a strict consensus vote to be more exact. IMNSHO that type of voting policy is not worthy. In the real world, a strict consensus vote is ugly. I feel strongly about this observation. There are other, more creative, more democratic, more economical ways to make decisions by an organization rather than the one person and one-vote method, either for a majority or for a strict consensus. Often what happens with a consensus -- the wheels of progress get stuck. Furthermore, the harder decisions don't get rendered. As an alternative, a percentage vote could be put into place as part of the charter for the "membership" who has the right to vote. Even with this discussion of the name, OpenKard, WildCard, Public Card, etc,. etc., --- an percentage vote would be one of the very best ways to select the name. It would also help in selecting out the top choices as well. Case in point: Say I like one option to 0% -- but three other other options equal --- then I'd split my 100% vote to 0, 33, 33, 34 percent. In a two-way decision, if a voting member does NOT care one way or the other about the outcome, that person can vote 50-50 -- and then leave the bulk of the weight of the vote to be determined by those who care greatly about that specific issue. In this way, voters can vote percentages of support for various choices. We could also say that a specific percent vote of some higher percentage (say 75%) would be necessary to get a major element changed, -- example: allowing for a new partner to join the ranks. Mark Rauterkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
