On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > > Each Office > >is filled (held) by a single Partnership whose name is the same as > >that Office. > > Eurgh. This really doesn't fit together, as evidenced by the exceptions > you have to make to partnership rules. It makes all officer actions > more complicated. > The only real exception is to allow Offices to remain partnerships even if their basis is less than 2 people. And I don't see how this is any more difficult than deputizing?
> Having a contract behind each office means quite a bit of extra > recordkeeping, and makes it too easy to break an office by damage to > its contract. Also allows a current officer to impose conditions on a > future officer by means of the contract. A broken contract can easily be fixed by proposal. The Notary already tracks public contracts, so a new system of recordkeeping is not required. Plus, I thought part of the fun would be to impose regulations upon future officers through the use of the contract. For example, the rulekeepor contract could specify how annotations should be applied. These and other unlisted "rules" could be recorded in a place that was specific to the office in question without cluttering the ruleset. BobTHJ
