Roger Hicks wrote: >To take the concept of Partnerships to the next level,
Interesting. I've been wondering about the potential for partnerships to become internally nomic-like, but the Pineapple-style agreement is sufficiently lightweight that it wouldn't naturally tend towards such a result. I think your corporation concept has enough internal structure to develop an internal game. Incidentally, I've come to realise that the legal structure we discovered/constructed for partnerships in some respects resembles real-life corporations more than real-life partnerships. It's definitely a hybrid, and there's some room for variation. What you've written is closer to the corporate end of the spectrum, whereas the Pineapple Partnership is (by design) much closer to a RL partnership. > I also want to make sure that it >complies with the law of Agora, I think it'll mostly work as you intend. There are a couple of things that should be added: * The charter refers to Primo Corporation, but never defines it. That was the point of clause 2 of the Pineapple agreement. In splitting it up (parts in Primo clauses 2 and 3) you lost the construction "... shall jointly act as a partnership". It's best to make that explicit. * Clause 6 says that changes to the charter can be proposed, and other clauses govern voting, but nothing actually says that the proposed changes happen if voted for. This should be explicit, in a separate clause. * The charter doesn't define the mechanism by which officers act on behalf of the corporation. You just need to explicate that they do so by posting to the PF making it clear that they're acting for the corporation. -zefram
