Roger Hicks wrote: >Again, under our current system a broken office can only be fixed by >proposal, so what's the difference?
How do we break an office, exactly? Under the current system an officeholder who is a partnership can become broken by contractual means, but can then be readily replaced wholesale by the normal process for replacing officers. Under your system the permanent officeholder can become broken by contractual means, and *can't* be replaced. >But if this boilerplate is included in a rule as you suggest then it >can not be amended, hence removing much of the fun of making them >mutable contracts. I don't think it's fun to have eleven slightly-different ways for officers to act. If you want to experiment with different ways for partnerships to act, then fine, do so as the AFO does. You can even experiment with such partnerships holding offices, as the AFO does. But don't force that on *every* office. >The Chair would have no ability to modify the office at will. To do so >would require a minimum of 2 additional Partners or a proposal. The former is quite easy to achieve for a scam. >Changes to an office would only occur with the consensus of the >Partners (unless this provision in the base contract was modified). An oligarchy that gains power can entrench itself. You're not selling it here. -zefram
