On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at
> least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people
> precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a
> player at the time so you would know better than I.
At a quick glance at SLC rules I didn't see anything about "reviewing":
A SLC is permitted to define its own mechanisms for changing its
own content, and any change to a SLC adopted in accordance with
its own mechanisms is legal.
so it looks like I did in fact add it.
> Perhaps, but the right is to "not be considered bound" by an
> amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the
> context of the present contract system.
Yah, I fully agree that it's very unclear what "not considered bound"
means in practice. Looks like it's time for (iii-iv) to get longer and
more details the way (i..ii) have. It's pretty easy to write in non-rights
terminology "any change made without giving parties the reasonable
opportunity to review is ineffective" but more convoluted in rights-
terminology.
-Goethe
