Re: [s-d] [s-b] Black Corp Motion

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> This could be simplified by changing "Voting Sockholders" to "parties to
> the contract", which can be left at any time; dividends could be paid to
> plain old sockholders without them being a party or voter or participant.
>
> There should be default provisions for when active sockholders cease to
> be players - hold the socks for their return indefinitely, destroy them,
> return them to the corp, auction them and disburse as dividends...
>

Ok, I think there's something wrong with changing Voting Sockholders to
parties to the contract. I can't remember what it is, though.

Your second paragraph: the Sock Corporations can't decide what to do with
the Socks; that's the Rules' power alone. Draft a proposal and I'm all for
it! I don't like the ambiguity either.


-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss