On Friday 14 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > comex wrote: > > >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs. > > > > A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class > > person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right. > > That's what I was thinking too, but even if it doesn't work, R101 > takes precedence, so that particular change would simply be > ineffective.
R101 is worded (IMO) such that the change would not be blocked, but non-first-class persons would be able to CFJ anyway, making the rule broken. A broken rule is worse than a suboptimal rule. Plus, I support partnerships' rights. :) If partnerships are "nerfed" to uselessness, then nobody will make them. There ought to be advantages to being members of partnerships, but not so numerous that you would make a silent partnership for yourself. Hence why I oppose 5370 and 5371. They both patch little loopholes that make partnerships worthwhile. But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you could argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are those that occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being able to more efficiently spend VCs. Hmm...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
