BUIP number requests: Splitting the project into node and wallet, Articles of Federation amendments

[TrevinHofmann]

@theZerg - Since you are the acting President, I am requesting two BUIP number assignments.

In the first, I will propose a long-term goal of splitting the BitcoinUnlimited repository/project into two separate repositories/projects. One would be the full node and the other would be the wallet. This is an important separation of concerns, and it has been planned but not yet implemented in Core.

In the second, I will propose a set of modifications to the Articles of Federation. They are mostly minor, such as adding PGP as an acceptable form of authentication alongside Bitcoin address signatures.

Thank you.

 

[Aquent]

I think for now, in the absence of a secretary, we are naming our own buips following the last one. 5 buips have been taken, so you can name your own buip as buip006 (if no one takes it before you do).

In regards to your first proposal that would be some huge work I think if I am not mistaken, but no harm in proposing it I suppose. In regards to the second, I agree we probably need a thread to flash out more and spruce up further the articles.

 

[TrevinHofmann]

Sure, I will assign my own numbers if I get to it before one is assigned.

 

[jbreher]

As I am familiarizing myself with BU, I am finding small items with which I have issue. How are changes to the website (I am speaking here of the copy) handled? Is it managed in an SCM? Can I branch and make a pull req?

My one larger item: The Articles of Federation seem muddled by virtue of the fact that the text mixes statement of principles (Essentially the preamble and Article I) with operational details (the remainder*). I might expect that the statement of principles might be inviolate over time, providing merely the rationale guiding the ongoing evolution of the operational details. The reader may note that this is a separation similar to USA's Declaration of Independence vs. Constitution. Or founders' vision vs. bylaws. The benefit of this separation would be that the principles, as a standalone doc, are more resistant to change than they wold otherwise be as merely part of an operational doc that will be modified over time.

*OK, I lied - I have one other fairly large item. I can't help but thinking that including the parameters of the mining endeavor as part of the foundational document is a mistake. Would this not be better as an operational BUIP?
[doublepost=1451602566][/doublepost]Incidentally, is bitco.in/forum 'the' place for such discussions? As an operational matter, this cannot be divined from a reading of the Articles of Federation. Maybe it will become clear as I work through other available documentation.

 

[TrevinHofmann]

>I can't help but thinking that including the parameters of the mining endeavor as part of the foundational document is a mistake. Would this not be better as an operational BUIP?

I agree. The pool is not essential to the existence of Bitcoin Unlimited. It's a planned project, and it likely won't last as long as Bitcoin Unlimited.

 

[solex]

@jbreher

Really good to see you here.

bitco.in/forum is a general forum for Bitcoin discussion for all ecosystem matters. It is more advanced than others, and importantly: censorship free.

Welcome to BU as well.
This is early days of the process where the various energies of many people is launching BU towards having potentially the No.1 Bitcoin client of the future. There is still scope for refinements to be made to the Articles of Federation so have please a look from here and suggest changes:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-ideas-arguments-and-proposals.123/#post-2903

I agree with @TrevinHofmann that a BUIP to detail and initiate the mining pool as a project is the next step for that.

The website is a collaborative effort. Please check here too:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-visual-identity.206/page-5#post-7617

This is just the start!

 

[theZerg]

The secretary cannot have the power to assign BUIP numbers as this gives him veto or delay power over proposals. So assign your own buip number and in the unlikely event of a collision edit your number or the secretary may do so.

You can suggest a reorg of the articles but my preference right now would be a focus on more important stuff.

If you have small typos or find holes you can post them. I plan to exercise my last moments as benevolent dictator to address small stuff.

 

[Lee Adams]

@theZerg

Again, I'd like to congratulate you on taking this project forward. I really like the vibe of the Articles of Federation. Hopefully you have accepted me as a member and have taken on board my initial comments in the membership thread.

1. Please confirm that I am a member.
2. I would really like to run as Secretary, but I can see no where that tells me 'how to submit a BUIP'. Am I missing something?

You state that the 'secretary cannot have the power to assign BUIP numbers...' and this is indeed correct, because the articles state 'The president shall assign BUIP numbers, organize BUIP discussion, and voting.'

As you point out, this does seem to give the president blocking powers and this is something you should address in the articles as 'benevolent dictator'.

I will submit a BUIP with further details about myself and why I feel I would make a good secretary once you have addressed point 1 and 2 above.

 

[theZerg]

Hi Lee,

Yes I caught that in the Articles when I was listening to Amanda's read-thru. I am going to fix it. To submit a BUIP, simply go to the "Bitcoin Unlimited" forum and post a new thread entitled "BUIP<number>: <Your title>" If your number conflicts, I will edit it. Thanks for volunteering to run for an office!!

 

[Lee Adams]

I assume I am a member then? I still do not see myself listed. http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/members

 

[TrevinHofmann]

I assume I am a member then? I still do not see myself listed.

I'm currently working on a pull request for the website, which will include an updated members list. It should be finished early this weekend, and I'm hoping it will also include BUIP voting and submission forms with automated signature validation.

 

[freetrader]

I'm also not listed. I think at some point the number of registering members just got too large to frequently update the list while more pressing developments were underway.

I read somewhere that there'll be a membership registration form on the site soon, is that correct?
Perhaps someone who knows what's up can create a new post and lock the old join post or something?

 

[theZerg]

Yes guys, don't sweat it. This isn't an exclusive club. If you posted to the join us page, you're a member. We just want people who care enough to BE members, agree to the Articles, and we don't want sock puppets.

Someday (soon) I hope the secretary will have each member accept more formally by putting a bitcoin or gpg signed statement below the Articles. But these are still the early days...

 

[Lee Adams]

@theZerg

Please consider putting the following into the articles before the 15th Jan elections:

“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these articles and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. ”
​

I would also like you to include a disolution clause, as this will give more control to members.

I would like more membership automity, but for now I think this clause

"Member: an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has voted within the last 1 year."​

protects those members sufficiently engaged to vote.

I think in order to be more agile, you should add a clause about 'Standing rules' defined as follows:

"Standing Rules should contain only such rules as may be adopted without previous notice by a majority vote at any business meeting. The vote on their adoption, or their amendment, before or after adoption, may be reconsidered. At any meeting they may be suspended by a majority vote, or they may be amended or rescinded by a two-thirds vote. If notice of the proposed action was given at a previous meeting or in the call for this meeting, they may be amended or rescinded by a majority vote. As a majority may suspend any of them for that meeting, these rules do not interfere with the freedom of any meeting and therefore require no notice in order to adopt them. Generally they are not adopted at the organization of a society, but from time to time as they are needed. Sometimes the by-laws of a society are called standing rules, but it is better to follow the usual classification of rules as given in this section. The following is an example of a standing rule:

Resolved, That the meetings of this society from April 1 to September 30 shall begin at 7:30 P.M., and during the rest of the year at 8 P.M.

No standing rule, or resolution, or motion is in order that conflicts with the articles, or by-laws, or rules of order."​

​

Finally this:

"I further recognize that becoming a member of the Bitcoin Unlimited Federation and simultaneously working to undermine the Bitcoin Unlimited Vision will inflict substantial harm on the other members of the Bitcoin Unlimited Confederation, including but not limited to, loss of Member's time quantified by the average hourly wage of a principal engineer in the USA, loss of member monetary donations, and loss of opportunity. "​

puts a legal liablility on anyone who signs, I would like it removed.
[doublepost=1452372048][/doublepost]Please understand that Roberts Rules do NOT override the articles.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Looking at the AoF, this seems like a very high hurdle for a no-confidence vote:

An officer can be removed via a "no confidence" BUIP. This BUIP follows the normal schedule, however it must pass with a 75% majority of voters, with at least 33% of members voting.

A few socks + low turnout could make it nearly impossible to remove anyone, say if someone tries to infiltrate the officer positions like happened recently on /r/btc.