BUIP049: (closed) Amend AoC to change membership period

[Windowly]

BUIP049: Amend AoC to change membership period

Proposer: Windowly
Submitted: 2017-03-18


Background:

So far, a certain number Bitcoin Unlimited members haven't felt that they needed to vote every time there was an election. Probably in most cases, they feel that BU is in good hands, and just want to be there to steady the boat if some major change is proposed or it looks like the Bitcoin Unlimited project is heading in the wrong direction.

Notably, neither Roger Ver (who runs the first Bitcoin Unlimited pool) or Hiayang (the founder and CEO of ViaBTC) voted in the last election. As the rules now stand, this would mean that if they don't vote in the next 8 1/2 months, they would loose their membership and have to rejoin.

Bitcoin Unlimited was created to give all stakeholders a say. Although elections are incredibly important and members should seek to participate actively at all times, members shouldn't be overly penalized for either not realizing there is an election or not caring about voting on the latest membership BUIP or conference BUIP. This rule change gives a grace period so that stakeholders who have been invited to to join our community can still weigh in at crucial times without having to needlessly miss a vote while they are re-inducted.

Proposal:

In Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation the words,

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

shall be struck out, and the following words put in their place,

"Member: an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has joined or voted within the last 5 years. However, an individual who has not voted within the last year shall not be considered a member of the quorum."

 

[solex]

@Windowly, Your proposal is a very good idea.
We do have a number of other threads over the past year about amending the AoC and what we would best do is put them to the membership at one time.
The quorum for amendments is high at 75% which means there would need to be request for feedback internally with all the members to ensure that these BUIPs get as large turnout as possible.

 

[lunar]

Just left a response on BUIP50 seems like it applies here too.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip050-double-yes-with-tie-break-question.1924/#post-36865

 

[Windowly]

@lunar Maybe we should not add too many members then till we get a few of the AoC things fixed. As more and more non-voters leave the voting rolls it should be easier to get a quorum.

 

[seweso]

Can I still vote? Or am I already out?

 

[freetrader]

@seweso : There an eligible member list link at https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/ .

Didn't find your username on it - probably lapsed due to voting inactivity ?

---

I'll just post here a brief explanation of why I voted against this BUIP in this round (May 2017).
I don't think it is very healthy to possibly have a large body of inactive members who only way in on some issues, distorting the usual quorum.

I would like to see a "grace period" as this BUIP envisions, but I would like members who don't participate for longer to lose their voting rights and become "dormant" members or something, until they re-apply for voting. I'm fine with them losing membership if they don't do anything for 3 or 5 years - that period can in my opinion be extended, although one year IS a pretty long time to be inactive on a project anyway. There is probably not much reason not to re-apply if you become interested again, the procedure is not difficult and should be relatively easier for members who have already been accepted in the past.

Short-term, I want to encourage people to participate on the issues, and vote - every time if possible!
Even a busy member can find time to vote on at least ONE proposal here or there within the time of a year.

 

[seweso]

Yeah, I never voted. But I did fight for BU with tweets and stuff.

 

[Norway]

One year is long enough, and five years is too long. I agree with freetrader on this one, and will vote against it.

 

[torusJKL]

I don't think it is very healthy to possibly have a large body of inactive members who only way in on some issues, distorting the usual quorum.

I voted before I read this but I think that this is the reason why I was not too comfortable with the idea and abstained.

I guess there would need to be some process to reactivate ones voting power. You should not be able to not vote for 4.5 years and then make a surprise vote out of the blue.

It comes down to the question what we want the member circle to be.
A wide one or a dedicated one.