BUIP116: (closed) Articles of Federation Clarification

[freetrader]

Misappropriation of BU funds would be another, if a non-member were to be entrusted with some.

Or sabotaging BU infrastructure.

I'm not sure trying to enumerate everything a non-member could do to hurt BU that would merit a vote of no confidence is fruitful.

 

[bitsko]

I propose a counter BUIP, where we vote on removing imaginary username, because he wanted to remove norway.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

In light of recent events, I will urge all members with any shred of conscience to vote for this adjustment, so we can remove @Norway from membership as soon as possible following proper procedure. His presence within the BU roster is a disgrace to the organization and hampers the chance of success of all future activities due to reputation damage. http://archive.ph/vujiz

Your appeal to punish bu members for free sprach is a disgrace. If you can't stand it, just fuck off and join a tyrannic organization which protects you from hearing things your baby brain doesn't want to compute.

 

[imaginary_username]

Apparently some people think doxxing and personal endangerment is "free speech", I learn more about the nature of these actors every day.

 

[Griffith]

I disagree with this BUIP. While I understand the reasons for it I do think this is a slippery slope to BU becoming just another tyranny. The Articles are there for a purpose, just like any Constitution, to grant rights to it's members. It's of little use if we say, you are a member but you can't speak your mind or we might kick you out for disagreeing with the majority thought processes. I think at the minimum the BUIP should be amended in a way that if someone is going to get the boot it has to be for some tangible offence...not just because most people think the guy is jerk or don't like what he has to say...it has to be something tangible and serious that can be proved, like being caught for palgiarism...(Sitting here thinking, I find it hard to even come up with any other tangible offenses since we do most of our work online and separate from each other.)

@Peter Tschipper As far as I can interpret (and maybe this needs some clarification) this BUIP in its current form does NOT change any of the powers members currently have, it just clarifies them.

Reference: (This is the current wording of section 2.10)

If actions of the President, Secretary, Developer, Pool Operator, or Member is in violation of these rules, that is grounds for removal. Any member may submit a "no confidence" BUIP as per section IX. Members are exhorted to vote based on their belief as to whether the individual broke these rules rather than their personal opinion of the individual's fitness for the office. A removed officer may re-run for any position.

I see your concern with voting to remove members, however, if members can not currently be removed via a "no confidence" then section 2.10 needs to be edited anyway and is currently misleading at best. If members can currently be removed then this BUIP simply clarifies the rules for removal. The removal process would still be through a "no confidence" BUIP as stated in the articles in their current form.

I think it is worth mentioning that at no point in the articles is the requirements for a no confidence BUIP laid out and this should probably be addressed at some point in the future. I would reason from your post you have similar concerns in that area due to your comments about offense tangibility (assuming the current 2.10 is valid and we can no confidence members as it currently stands).
[doublepost=1555166125,1555165425][/doublepost]if someone has a counter interpretation to the current version of article 2.10 that can explain to me why no confidence doesn't apply to members, i would appreciate it being shared.
[doublepost=1555167191][/doublepost]The title of this BUIP in the OP says BUIP 113, it should say 116.
The title should be adjusted from adjustments to clarifications to better express what this BUIP does.

is there a way to change those two things? i dont have the ability to edit the OP anymore.

 

[Zarathustra]

Apparently some people think doxxing and personal endangerment is "free speech", I learn more about the nature of these actors every day.

If this worried you, you wouldn't make it even more visible. Hypocrisy.

 

[solex]

Apologies to @Griffith, for the long silence on this. I wanted to see a lot of membership feedback on the proposal first.

I tend to agree with @theZerg that the BU Articles are actually working pretty well in guiding this organization. If BU had been the majority client for BCH last year, then the split could have been avoided. We would probably still have the single ecosystem, a more valuable coin, with more network effect, Albeit, with a lot of voices arguing for different development directions, including less changes, or none, i.e. "lockdown".

The main thing holding BTC back is its onchain capacity limit. Once that was resolved with a spinoff, via BCH, then all other software changes are individually less important.

The main thrust of this BUIP is to formally include members for possible sanctioning, like the officers already mentioned in the AOF. Yet, members who are dissatisfied tend to resign or expire their memberships anyway. We have had seven resignations in 2019. Others expire periodically due to not voting for year. Do we really want a series of emotionally stressful BUIPs to achieve what is happening organically?

The huge diversity in BU is part of its strength. We need many perspectives from the members to avoid becoming an echo-chamber. Diversity helps avoid the groupthink which is a pitfall of some development teams in cryptocurrency.

Nevertheless, reasonable proposals which aim to improve the organization deserve to be put up for vote. If you consider that subjective metric satisfied, then I am fine to include it in the next voting session.

 

[Griffith]

@solex Would you please explicitly state for clarification purposes if 2.10 currently allows non-officer members to be removed via a no-confidence buip? At a bare minimum I will insist that there is definitely an inconsistency with regards to member removal between the current articles 2.9 and 2.10.

 

[solex]

@Griffith
In my opinion the clauses 2.9 and 2.10 relate specifically to the elected officers, their conduct and membership sanction.
I do accept that 2.10 includes "or Member" which is indeed an inconsistency. That alone does merit a BUIP to clarify the AOF, but otherwise there is no specific clause for non-officers.
Arguably, a standard BUIP requiring a majority (not super-majority) is sufficient to revoke membership for a non-officer, as members are inducted by BUIP, however, the rules do not detail this.

The way it reads to me is that there are two levels for sanction:

For elected officers there is removal from their position to become a non-officer member.
For non-officer members there is removal of their membership.

So, clause 2.9 deals with the first sanction, and 2.10 deals with the second. However, the wording could be clearer.

 

[imaginary_username]

@solex I get your argument about opinions and speech, and I'm not railing against any of that, no matter how hideous; if it's necessary to exclude those in this BUIP, I'll be happy to see @Griffith amend it.

However, from time to time there are objectively malicious individuals who endanger the personal safety of others, such as @Norway in his reckless participation in doxxing hodlnaut.

I believe there is a line that can be crossed, and has been crossed here. Note that I'm specifically referring to this one member; I'm uninterested in members who profess to support him no matter how loud they are - they are free to express their opinions whichever way they want.

If anything, this BUIP might be worth it just to clarify that a no confidence vote may not be raised against a member for opinion alone.

 

[Norway]

@imaginary_username
Write a BUIP to have me kicked out of BU or put a sock in it.

 

[solex]

@imaginary_username
OK, what you say makes sense, however, I don't know anything about hodlonaut or him being doxxed.

If a BUIP is raised to remove a BU membership, then I will put it up for vote.

 

[Griffith]

edited: removed

 

[solex]

@Griffith I am fine with your clarification.
While you were writing your post, I did edit mine with further details.

 

[Griffith]

@solex i see it now. i deleted my last post about changes. i now need to think about it. This BUIP shouldnt change any member privileges, it should only clarify the,

 

[solex]

I understand. Frankly, this is an area of the AOF which has not been under scrutiny since it was written.

 

[Zarathustra]

@solex I get your argument about opinions and speech, and I'm not railing against any of that, no matter how hideous; if it's necessary to exclude those in this BUIP, I'll be happy to see @Griffith

However, from time to time there are objectively malicious individuals who endanger the personal safety of others, such as @Norway in his reckless participation in doxxing hodlnaut.

Peak hypocrisy. You gave that 'doxxing' more visibility and even put in on the internet archive, so that it will be visible even if @Norway deletes the tweet.

 

[imaginary_username]

By popular demand, I am now raising a BUIP. https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip-122-remove-norway-from-membership.23840/

 

[Griffith]

ok, @solex based on your comments the BUIP in the OP should be updated to state the following:

BUIP116: Articles of Federation Clarification
Submitted by: Griffith
Date: 2019/3/27
Revised: 2019/4/14

Summary
There are currently inconsistency issues with the AOF that should be clarified.
- There is currently no section 2.5
- It is unclear between sections 2.9 and 2.10 if a no-confidence BUIP can be filed against a non-officer member or not. This is allowed via standard BUIP as was clarified by solex but it is unclear that this is the case.
- It is unclear that section 2.9 applies only to removal from an officer position, not the BU organization entirely.

NOTE
It is important to point out that regardless of this BUIP passing, since it is already written in the articles, members can be kicked out via a standard BUIP. This BUIP simply adds a section to clearly define the rules regarding non-officer member removal as it is not immediately clear while reading the articles. It also clarifies that article 2.9 applies only to removal of an officer from their officer position, not removal of an officer as a BU member entirely.

Proposal
this BUIP would fix these issues by making the following changes in the order stated:

- section 2.6 has its number changed 2.5

- section 2.7 has its number changed to 2.6

- section 2.8 has its number changed to 2.7

- a new section 2.8 is added with the following text in an effort to clarify non officer member removal:
A member who does not hold an officer position (henceforth non-officer member) can be removed via a "no confidence" BUIP. This BUIP follows the normal schedule, however it must pass with a 75% super-majority of voters with at least 25% of members voting or a 51% majority vote with at least 50% of members voting. A BUIP advocating for the removal of a particular non-officer member may not be occur within 4 months of a prior unsuccessful proposal advocating for the removal of that member. Multiple non-officer member removal BUIPs are not allowed. Submit them separately.

- section 2.9 is amended to the following in an effort to clarify that this article only applies to removal from the officer position:
An officer can be removed from their position via a "no confidence" BUIP. This BUIP follows the normal schedule, however it must pass with a 75% super-majority of voters, with at least 33% of members voting. A BUIP advocating for the removal of a particular officer from their position may not be occur within 4 months of a prior unsuccessful proposal advocating for the removal of that officer. Removal proposals will be managed by an officer who is not affected by the BUIP. Multiple officer removal BUIPs are not allowed. Submit them separately.

- section 2.10 is amended to the following to clarify the difference between sections 2.8 and 2.9:
If actions of the President, Secretary, Developer, Pool Operator, or Member is in violation of these rules, that is grounds for removal. Any member may submit a "no confidence" BUIP against a non-officer member as per section VIII. Any member may submit a "no confidence" BUIP against an officer as per section IX. Members are exhorted to vote based on their belief as to whether the individual broke these rules rather than their personal opinion of the individual. A removed member may re-apply for membership. A removed officer may re-run for any position.

Motivation
Clarification of the articles is needed due to an inconsistency that makes it unclear what the process for member removal is as well as the distinction between removal from an officer position and member removal.

 

[solex]

@Griffith. I will update the OP with this.