With an equal number of founder elected Directors and VC elected Directors, if your outside tiebreaker director is brought in by the VC's you will be in danger of losing control because you cannot control the situation.
Especially if the tie breaker is planning on doing some additional business with the VC in the future, you may not have a truly neutral person casting the vote.
So, how is founder control typically structured?
For instance, do founder Stockholders get 2 votes per share to elect Directors with, and VC's get 1 vote per share with a guaranteed VC director seat on the board? Or are Directors elected by founders getting 2 votes on a particular decision item A and 1 vote on decision item B, and VC Directors get 1 vote on A and B?
Does anyone know what is currently going on with this?
You should have found "one" who was interested (hot to work on your project) while you were there, and "closed the deal" right there.
Separate the wheat from the chaff, and ABC (always be closing)!
If you thought to get their e-mail (in my opinion, the best way to "initially" communicate with most coders) pop them an e-mail and see if they are still interested. Not everyone is a phone person.
It might be more productive to isolate genes that relate to a low IQ, and then discard those from the sample. When looking for a needle in a haystack it would make the haystack smaller.
Well, the meetup is open to anyone who wants to network with future founders and co-founders. (We just don't let service provides and consultants in).
That's how it has worked in Silicon Valley: maybe a third of the attendees are there to have a look, get a feel, before they jump in and actively consider joining as co-founder.
Maybe think about building separate robots for each task (tub, etc...) that can be permanently attached to wall or the ceiling near its work spot. Tasks could be accomplished using special arms for each sub-task. A lifting arm, a chemical spraying arm, etc...
It would take the "where am I" "where is the target" out of the robots equation. You could simply hardcode the desired movements into the robot. Then if you wanted to sell them you could build a learning routine into the code so the public could easily use it after bolting it to the walls in their houses.
I gather this is how industrial robots work? I get a robot with a clean slate and then I guide it through the first few attempts at a task, then it does the same thing over and over again by itself.
Why not just write it into Federal law that a site can act as its own registered DMCA Takedown Agent, instead of having everyone go through additional red tape and pay a $105 fee to run a blog.
In a way it seems like the fee to register is a freedom of speech issue. Pay an inconsequential tiny fee to run a blog, or potentially suffer huge financial losses. Kind of like the old Poll Tax from years ago.
It seems like being proactive as builders and maintainers of the internet, and getting a new field added to the WHOIS data for a DMCA takedown email addresses would make the process easier to administer for the complaintants, and more in keeping with Freedom of Speech that the United States is founded on.
AIUI the $105 fee is to register as your own DMCA agent. Presumably it would cost much more to hire someone to handle DMCA requests for you.
I don't understand the legalities about registration, but there have definitely been problems about sending DMCA notices to the right place. In many cases attackers send the notices to your hosting company who just nukes your server and then notifies you later (or nukes your DSL and sends email to an address you've never used). Would they have sent the notice directly to you if you registered?
My domains have my actual contact info on them including my name and address of service, I can't imagine a court wouldn't find that a sufficient substitute for the $105 listing. At least, that's the angle I would take if I found myself in that position.
