On Nov 15, 2007 9:15 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/15/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Our past versions of contests worked best when they depended solely on a > > contestmaster for continuity. But also, this is a philosophical difference > > between us, I suspect. While we needed non-Agoran contract definitions to > > bootstrap partnerships, and we still need them for the partnership->person > > link perhaps, we do not need to be so strict for non-partnership contracts. > > I think that the whole > contract-doesn't-exist-until-someone-agrees-to-it mechanism is kind of > messy... > I concur. It makes sense for a partnership to have a minimum of two parties, but why do contracts in general require a second party?
BobTHJ
