Re: [s-d] Where to put Black Info

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Charles, the parties to the contracts should be listed on the Business
Ministry page. But they are already. There are no parties to the Black
Corporation Contract. Members aren't parties. The only reason the
Corporation isn't dissolved by the last line of Rule 70 is that the last
paragraph of Rule 68 takes precedence, according to Rule 75!

-Tyler

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Charles Schaefer
<chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 2008/8/25, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > As for your first question, Charles, I agree with you that we should
> avoid
> > repetition. I also think it is best to leave things where they were
> before,
> > letting the respective Ministers keep their PD's centralized.
> >
> > I'll remove the Black sockholders section, but I'm going to change the
> mack
> > holdings part to a 'budget' with recent mack transfers. That's kind of
> > important if we want to keep track of what mack went to which officers,
> > etc.
> > Sound good? Thanks for your input.
> >
> > -Tyler
>
>
> Sounds good. Also, I just realized that parties to the contracts should
> technically be listed on the PD, as tracking them is part of my ministerial
> obligations.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss