as those of you, who know german, french, italian, espanol, hebrew, arabic etc etc etc may be aware to, the usual form to express, that male and female persons are talked about, is to just use the male form. I don't like it. Me, as a german speaker, am constantly trying to be creative in always new approaches regarding that effect. It is always a 'dance on the wire' between the readability and the flow of the writing at one hand, and the -in my opinion- necessary explicit mentioning of females in some way at the other hand.

In german, there are some -more or less sophisticate- approaches in use by people trying to be pc, but all of which seem in one or the other way poor, miserable, stiff and/or not fun.

Others claim, well, of course we mean also females, what is the fuss about…

Sure. Just, if you are (incidently) a male person, and you symphatize with this claim, just for fun try a little exercise: Replace the male form with the female form in any arbitrary text, read it, and find out if 'of course' you feel meant, too. I am curious about the result, you're welcome to share it at this place…

And you are welcome to share your opinion as well as any other thoughts, ideas, suggestions, critics etc about the subject, considering the german or any other concerned language (english doesn't seem to be so much affected, is that right?)

Looking forward to your feedback and to a developing discussion, which, in the best case, hopefully may even lead to a better solution…

~ Walk in BeautY ~

by babelfish-> go
http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/babelfish/tr
and put this url http://iswith.wikidot.com/common-company-in-6-points-ger
and then select German to English

by google-> go
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fiswith.wikidot.com%2Fcommon-company-in-6-points-ger&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

please help the non-German here :)
thanks
gtgl

Because these 6 points are for achieving an outstanding standard by which full transparency can be easily get by knowing the d alone, hence the distinction between the 2 portion must be fully clear. This standard must be simple (one factor - the d), if the purpose is decentralization of the market, which is the case for the concept of the ComCom.

<\ who's doing the work?
/> those who get payed and/or the members, as in the web 2.0 strategies
<\ ok let's get the whole picture
let's say we make databases for companies
/> ok
<\ we have 100 coders
we have 1000 customers
/> ok
you can do it in 2 ways:
the question is who are we, are we private shareholders? and do we need such, for investment
<\ ok start over
/> so lets say we need some investment we would put d=0.8, for real investor to be private shareholders, and we the coders would be 100 common share holders, we would pay our holding by coding
<\ let's say we make a web browser with smellovision
/> what is smellovision?
<\ you can smell people over the internet
joke
/> fine
so lets define numbers here
say we want 1m investment, we are 100 coder having already the concept
we expect market of ?
… ok lets say market of 100m
so
the privet investors would get , from the market of 100m only 20m whereas each of the common share holder would get 800,000
but that is if we did not expanses,
<\ ok
now
/> now let say the market was here defined per year
<\ what happens with the 10 and 24?
if I don't code I pay 24 a month
but if I code I don't pay anything?
/> moment,
it, how to use the d or the distinction can be played in different ways
in the 1st e.g. we talked about some thing like web 2.0 thing and in the 2nd about hard core developers
you can play it more wide if you would allow 3rd party services as part of the structure
<\ but where is the 10 and the 24?
/> in the 2nd e.g. the 10 is the activity of the common shareholder being the coders, and the 24 is payed by the companies to which we sell the smelling machine
<\ ok so if I code I don't pay and if I don't code I pay?
If I'm the common shareholder?
/> that is in the 2nd, the client is fully distinguished from the company whereas in 1st the client is part of building the company
if the company get income from non common share holder, the company is free from them, those are the clients of the smelling machine
<\ Ok example:
100 people have shares, 50 code, 50 pay 10
/> define common and privet please
also the d
<\ all are common
and .8
how does the share price go up or down?
/> yes it can be, but i do not know if this what you mean
it means that those who pay 10 and those who code are EQUAL
<\ ok
fair enough
/> now it may hold with the payment of membership
<\ membership = cost of service?
/> but if that is so, why not having the coder in the private
membership cost = cost of service+ benfite
<\ benefits?
like
what?
I think I get it
/> of the shareholders , like dividend and holding Intellectual Properties
<\ ok
/> 8-|:P:D

<\ Alice is 100 coders, Bob is 10m buyers, Charlie is 1m investor
/> so
<\ something is odd about it
/> 1st question do we want the buyers to be common shareholders
ok look
<\ let's start with no
buyer is just customer
make it simple then more complex
/> so this is easy have the investor in private and the coder in common, and you are done
<\ how much code = 1 share?
Alice is common and Charlie is private
<\ right
1000 lines of code, 2 months of code?
20 hours per month of maintenance of code?
/> so 0.008 get each coder and0.2 get Charlie
<\ if coder stops coding?
/> from the income, which did not say, did we define the income?
he get!!!
this is so much important in relation to open source
<\ I know
but it has to be reasonable or no one invest as private
/> he gets, he might get less, because other coder gut in where he gut out of coding, but not from common shareholding, that is to say we would have more common share holders
<\ How about this:
/> it is so reasonable, since no gut my invention, because i am not going to code all my life
?
<\ I have an idea
if coder stops coding, he becomes private shareholder
from his coding but no longer has control of code
or something
/> let me say this:
1. no one can be both common and private shareholder
<\ right has to exchange
/> 2. the values might feet to what you suggest but not always
<\ charter of company would state that
there is a way to do this very simple
/> can exchange but not be both, btw you can have common company in one portion and be persnal privte shareholder in the other
so no problem, it depended on the value
it might hold, but the problem is of being scalable
e.g. we begin in d=0.8 and 1M private and 100 coders
being common
now the company gut huge
its total is 1b
no , sorry YOU ARE RIGHT
it holds
because the common would be exchanging for the right proportion
but
<\ someone who pays 10 gets 800,000, someone who pays 1million gets 200,000 something wrong there
/> to summarize, such regulation, we need to granty that the private holder would agree because that one going to loose
it not hold, sorry again
<\ there is a way to do this but it's going to have to be carefully done
/> because the common would evacuate place for other common , but the private would not agree to pay it
<\ ok let's try a different way:
/> look take yourself in the private
as private you are going to pay from your share for nothing to the common one
this cause fraction!!!
<\ yup
after 6 years investor makes profit 200,000 while coder buys a hotel
/> just to add for this case, all the common would benfite from that exachnge
>?<hotel<?!>
<\ small hotel
/> no problem , go on
<\ ok
here's the way to do:
the code is made of modules
/> y?
<\ so we can know the value of the code
/> …
<\ so we know how to exchange
/> but why should we!?
<\ never mind my mistake
/> we could add new common constatly, if the value of the code is such which would alow to build on it
then we say we have 100 coder to BEGIN with , the would make such amount of code, which genrate income
that income sould continue ONLY if more coder would com in
so the income would increse , it would be added
<\ ok
/> now to this flow we add more doprs, more coders
<\ how about this: no common or private
/> more income distinuted between more coders
all are common
<\ code = .8 and money = .2
make it simple that way
or better
/> code is common money is private, but what is the moeny income or out come?
<\ investor gets 20million coder get 800,000
/> so that is what we talked before?
<\ only coder is common there is no money common
because 800,000/10 = 80,000x profit, 20m/1m = 20x profit
investor makes more but spends less
er but common spends less
/> i did not gut the different, please try to use the (my) definition we already established

Any page you can also rate and in any case: Let the others learn and earn from your learning, please watch the threads ask, replay, post etc.

You can also create pages in this site and after contacting they might be included in this font page.

All about ComCom and/or about how to realize it (how to ComCom it)
is in our need, we must let it out!

last thing add your "new comment" here and replay me
please :)