HI All,
First off, some attribution to me has been off the mark. I didn't write the
Section 11: Voting part. I did just requoted it from the draft on the net.
Secondly, another point I made had ***** throughout a word in the requote,
when I wrote originally "strict consensus." Helpful tip: Please be a lot
more careful out there, okay.
Now, on to comments. Sorry, but my reply came out of timed order on this
one.
Someone wrote:
> Mark's attitude stinks.
Then went onto to say, among other things, "The council could not ... blurt
out ill-considered objections and idiosyncratic prejudices.
Just for the record, comments about my attitude stinking are, IMHO, a great
example of an ill-considered objection. Funny how those got tied together in
the same post. I'm led to guess then that the above attitude assesment must
have been a toung-in-cheek quip.
Thanks for the interesting history lesson on the confederation. The
consensus fit then and there. Here is another matter. The notion of
_protecting the interests_ is of little or NO concern here. We have no
interests to "protect." We have not assets. We won't.
FACT: We choose to work together on something for the public domain.
OPINION: In all of life, most acts are either to create equity or to protect
equity. I need to protect the "sniff-ability of my attitude" but there is
NOTHING else to put into an accountant's books. This endeavor is a creation
exercise. Things that hinder action are fatal, here.
I'm voicing "THOUGHTFUL DISSENT" on the matter of 100% agreement needed
before action is taken by partners. (FWIW, I've said here that I'd like to
be a partner.)
Now what. ????
Well, perhaps I'll ponder further. The sachems were required to be of "one
mind." How do WE issue that test? I'm telling you now, I'm going to fail
that "one-mind test." So, I won't be in. Fine. If the notion here stands in
that, "Unanimity becomes a fundamental law," then I'm outta here regardless.
- - - - -
Garry wrote:
> It tends to not work
> unless you have a warrior/leader in the first instance who is so powerful
> that everyone wants to follow him. Fortunately you have the Great Freecard
> Warrior.
Excuse me for asking, but, who is the Great Freecard Warrior?
Otherwise, that "not working" tendency sounds visionary.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: Sorry if this message casts a foul odor in your mail box.
