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% majority of all partners. All other decisions and agreements
> made by the partnership shall be made by a simple majority of those voting."
Well, some scattered thoughts....
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?
#2. One should be able to NOT be a partner by one's own choice. No vote
needed.
#3. And, perhaps there should be some "suspension" right to being a partner
too. Say I have a baby -- and I want to suspend my partnership agreement for
6 months. Then what? Could it be done? Going "NO-MAIL" is something that
should be okay here, I hope.
#4. On the issue of a gross rejection/removal of an existing partner --
tossing him/her out of the rights of partnership -- humm. There is NO WAY,
if I'm given the toss, I'm going to vote for my own removal. The group can't
get 100% agreement on tossing a member if that member has a vote.
#5. The idea of the group being able to decide to incur contractual debt --
humm. I think that would be something that a satalite group, not the main
body of this effort, would choose to do. IMHO, I think being debt free
should be a main mission of the organization. But, what do you mean by
"contractual debt?"
Nods and shrugs and other reactions welcomed.
Mark R.
