Hi,
Muddy vision, muddled post. The shoe fits. Good recap of my Partnership
Ideals posting. Thanks. FWIW, a key word in de-coding what comes in the next
text block is *SHOULD*.
> Alain: This is readily evident to me now because of
> this muddled post that I am replying to. You stipulate
> that we don't need unaminity for security-reasons
> because there is no liability involved, but then you
> go on to argue that majority-rule is the way to go,
> even if some remote liability _should_ crop up, "because
> the decisions are going to be of no financial
> consequence". Then you go on to say that there _should_
> not be any liabilities for partners at the outset and
> forever more, and that they _should_ form other
> organizations if they wish to do business.
Globally, I guess as we chat, we need to elevate our conversations by
turning the instances of _SHOULD_ into more assertive "_MUST_" statements so
as to be perfectly clear.
Sorry to muddle about some more and extend a thread that might be best if
put to rest and re-positioned from a fresh start. But, since there were some
hanging questions from Alain, this ramble resumes.
> ... (with the original draft & pondered framework so far)..
> Mark: I'm not able to see the venture being
> successful, nor being able to change and grow.
>
> Alain: What is it EXACTLY that would hinder us so?
1. Consensus voting -- err -- 100% voting.
2. Uphill battles for Constitutional/Framework changes.
3. Timid folks in directors' roles. (that FEAR - FUD factors)
4. The shared vision thing.
5. Trying to be too much to too many different people in one body.
> Alain wrote.....
> Secondly, that unless we are clairvoyant, we will not
> be able to anticipate the entire set of
> rules/guidelines that will be optimal for us until the
> end of time. But we should nonetheless set down some
> broad principles that will guide our future choices. A
> majority-vote to engage in some mutual liability later
> on down the road should be barred from the realm of
> possibilities or be unanimously agreed to.
Humm. This is a good example of our thinking differently, right at the
outset. I'll say: Let's be clairvoyant. Let's give it a shot at least.
I'll advocate about the organizational entity -- We (gulp...) _MUST_ agree
on three points:
#1) to exist.
#2) to be non-$.
That concept of being "non-$" is the HOW of our being. In discussions so
far we have been able to agree to exist on a non-$ basis.
This non-$ way is NOT a "business."
This non-$ way is NOT as a "non-profit corporation."
This "non-$" concept is quite a distinction.
Perhaps this loose non-economic association could be a "trust?"
?????
#3) to make all other decisions as part of other organizations elsewhere.
So, if any other issues do crop up in the future, we'd have to agree to
make all those other issues as seeds for other organizations to deal with.
Summary: I'm saying that this ORIGINAL organization can come into being so
as to exist, to exist in a non-$ way, and to draw the line at that and
nothing else. Meanwhile, other, additional, pending, alternative
ORGANIZATIONS would be very welcomed in the marketplace.
So, as a way to be clairvoyant, let's say other issues go to other places --
and NOT to the ORIGINAL organization.
Jargon: There is a USA slogan (I think it is American as a former US
President made it popular) that says, "The buck stops here." The buck (slag
for $1) means the brunt of responsibility (perhaps bill, i.e., legislation)
comes to this desk -- my office. President said in time of crisis, "I'm the
guy in charge." All issues are resolved here. I'm responsible. For this
ORIGINAL organization, I'm going to advocate that, "THE buck DOES NOT stop
here."
That would be my clairoyant expression of the hour. Let's say, when it comes
to organizational policies, "the buck does NOT stop here." Rather, take the
aspirations of other things elsewhere.
> Alain: What is impossible about insisting that
> unanimity be required for a drastic change in the
> status of our association that would expose us to
> liability that we had not bargained for when we became
> a partner, particularly if we are one the out-voted
> dissenters.
Good point.
My point is: We should not ever allow that vote to come onto THIS table.
We agree. But, we differ on how to structure that agreement (perhaps).
> Mark: I feel that this endeavor (most of all, being a
> partner) is NOT for the timid. If all dangers can be
> eliminated, are partners even needed? Without dangers,
> how can each partner be liable to the other?
>
> Alain: Is there going to be some danger or isn't
> there?
We need to better define "dangers" and "liabilities."
> Alain: (1) Let us research the matter further so that
> we can identify potential sources of liability, and
> then modify our collaboration agreement to avoid them.
Right on.
> Alain: (2) Majority-rule on something as fundamental
> as un-anticipated mutual liability is dangerous in my
> opinion. It is probably why Scott cannot allow himself
> to become a partner of FreeCard. And my situation is
> not unlike his. I am a technological startup that
> could blossom into something really big.
Bingo! That is the problem, to be sure. Hence, this is WHY we need to make
our approach and our charter so clear from the get go. Our vision and our
scope (for ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION) has to be refined and presented in the end
so as to be "mistake free."
This group can do one or two great things very well forever more, I'm going
to predict. But, this (ORIGINAL ORG) group must stick to its un-wavering
mission. "Stick to the knitting" so to speak. And, nothing more. The
built-in problems of doing too much are going to kill this group if we even
think about trying to do too much.
> Mark: Should any liabilities be desired at a future
> date, then other organizations should be created.
>
> Alain: What if they vote to change your above rule and
> thus make our collaboration into a business
> partnership with full liability?
That would be a hijacking. This is one reason to make the organization
"hijack proof." If we have no assets of $, we can't be robbed for our money.
If you want what I've got, come and get it. It is yours. Being digital
(originals and copies can be cloned exactly) is handy, rather than being
carbon-based.
In the carbon-based world, someone can take my car. But, in the digital
world here, our desire is for them to take our ideas. Use our tools. Grow
participation. We're going to be giving our treasures away.
Even on the net, one can be MUGGED however. Vandals exist. There is some
worry. Spam mail, crackers, spoofing, and other bad boy habits can hinder
even those without cash transactions. But, hey, there is strength in
numbers. There is reason to go into the venture flanked a group of friends.
That is where this "association" is valued. And, if it is a "loose" one, the
value of the organization dims. I want a tight partnerships, strong
relationships, clear understanding of who is who and why we exist.
That is why I see the need for "partners." If this venture is going to
flourish, someone has got to stand up and be counted. The media and the
jaded public want to know that there are "real people" behind the
organization and "domains". Our "directors" are comfort-zone enhancements to
being viable, to being human, to being friendly. With directors, we are
going to be more successful, I think.
As in the movie, "Who is Spartacus?" Well, at least I'll be able to stand up
and wave and say, "I am Rauterkus." ;|
I won't be mugged if I carry no cash, travel with a pack of loyal friends,
and can swing a skillful sword when there are instances when someone
forcefully attempts to get in the way of me and my breathing ability.
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
