On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not just make it CAN NOT so attempts to register are unsuccessful in
>> the first place? -goethe
>
> Pragmatism. We don't necessarily know what the basis of a partnership is.
Sounds ok.
I had in mind a broader set of restrictions I haven't gotten around to
writing up, to wit the following:
1. A partnership must be a public contract to be a person (therefore
basis is tracked by Notary). Give existing partnerships X time
to comply.
2. If *any* member of the basis have not made a public post in the
last N days (suggest 30-60), partnership may be made inactive with
Support (no silent partners allowed).
3. Inactive for one month -> deregistration with Support.
4. (more restrictive) get rid of 2nd+ order partnerships entirely
(law doesn't necessarily recognize parterships of partnerships as
persons).
Feel free to write this up if you like. Perhaps each as separate proposals
so a range of restrictions is offered.
-Goethe
