Mark Rauterkus: 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? Alain: Same point that I made. Mark Rauterkus: #2. One should be able to NOT be a partner by one's own choice. No vote needed. Alain: That's a gimme in my book too. Mark Rauterkus: #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? Alain: The partner drops out of sight for a while, then returns when he can. I have no problem with that. No need to "suspend" him. Mark Rauterkus: Could it be done? Alain: The main thing, I believe, is that he notifies us of his departure, gives us a ballpark estimate of when he thinks that he will return, and that he accepts the group-decisions taken in his absence. Mark Rauterkus: Going "NO-MAIL" is something that should be okay here, I hope. Alain: Breaking off communication is usually not a very good sign. But I am the first to concede that there are sometimes circumstances or other which could arise that would justify a partner's absence. Missing votes is the only standing issue here. Mark Rauterkus: #4. On the issue of a gross rejection/removal of an existing partner -- tossing him/her out of the rights of partnership -- humm. Alain: If the partner became belligerent, offensive, violent, abusive, destructive, or something unacceptable like that, then I hope we have the good sense to put into place some procedures that will allow us to decide and enforce such a removal if it ever becomes necessary. This unpleasant propect is unlikely though. Mark Rauterkus: 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. Alain: A fatal flaw of strict unanimity, eh! Nice try. Consensus and majority are less strict than unanimity, however. Besides, unanimity or consensus or majority are not that important in this case. If you piss off members, you will be shunned. It's human nature. Mark Rauterkus: #5. The idea of the group being able to decide to incur contractual debt -- humm. Alain: I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about this one. No liability or responsibility whatsoever for our non-business free association of individuals. Not now, not later, even if someone were to suggest that we vote to do so. This must be enshrined in our Constitution, for lack of a better term. Mark Rauterkus: I think that would be something that a satellite 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. Alain: I insist. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com
