BUIP050: (closed) Double yes with tie-break question

[torusJKL]

BUIP050: Double yes with tie-break question

Proposer: torusJKL
Submitted: 2017-03-18

Background:
In case of a counter BUIP the Article of Federation states the following:

"If a counter-BUIP is proposed, voting occurs in a twofold manner: first each member votes his preference, BUIP, counter, or none, with a 33% majority. Then if the BUIP or counter-BUIP wins, each member votes to accept it or not with the normal majority requirement. Note that members could make both votes simultaneously (I vote for the counter, but if BUIP wins I vote to accept it), depending on the Secretary's implementation of this process."

The need of a 33% majority is in favor of the status quo because the members wanting a change might need more than the normal required 51% for a regular vote (between 33% and 66% combined)

Proposal:
I propose that we use a system that is established in Switzerland: Double Yes with a tie-break question (Doppeltes Ja mit Stichfrage)

The above paragraph should be removed and replaced with the following:
"If a counter-BUIP is proposed, members can vote for one, both or none of the BUIP/counter-BUIP (hereafter BUIP).
Independent of their vote (including abstention on one or both BUIP) the members can define which BUIP they want to adopt should both be accepted (tie-break question). In case of the tie-break the BUIP with a simple majority of all tie-break votes (not including abstentions) is adopted."

 

[solex]

Hi @torusJKL Interesting proposal.
You can use 50 for this BUIP.

 

[lunar]

Good Suggestion, however this BUIP seems like it will need an change to the articles of federation. I'm not opposed to changing them, but you should note:

"This document can be modified via a greater than 66% majority vote on a BUIP with at least 75% of the members voting."

I don't think we've ever had that turnout. They are hard to change for a reason.

My personal preference would be to wait until we've finally broken the 1MB barrier. Then we should all get our heads together in a collaborative effort on GH maybe, and iron out any imperfections to the articles, perhaps even get the EFF or similar group to have a once over.

I can't see them changing on a regular basis after that, if ever.

 

[torusJKL]

Yes, 75% of the members is a very high goal.

Solex suggested for another BUIP that would also need to change the articles of federation to create a package of all these BUIPs and rally as many members as possible in one go.

 

[sickpig]

@torusJKL

is the BUIP as stated in the first post of the thread in his final version? Could I add it to the BUIP repo?

 

[torusJKL]

@sickpig yes, please add it to the repo. Thanks.

 

[freetrader]

I like this proposal.