BUIP116: (closed) Articles of Federation Clarification

[freetrader]

@Griffith : I think I see the motivation for not allowing removal of multiple members in a single BUIP, but I'd like to get that motivation laid out and included in this BUIP.

Here's what I see, and please amend or correct me if I'm wrong:

Having a single BUIP for every member proposed to be removed allows for discussion of each case independently, and thus allows for a more fair and reasoned consideration.

I absolutely support this. I think removal of members should only happen in exceptional circumstances, the accusations against them should be laid out clearly in such BUIPs, and the fate (expulsion or not) should be voted on an individual, case-by-case basis.

 

[Griffith]

@freetrader this BUIP doesnt change the rules, it just clarifies them as they current stand as you can see with buip 122.

the one at a time for membership removal is because it is already stated in 2.9 that no confidence buips can only target 1 person per buip for officer removal and 2.10 states to follow 2.9 procedures therefor member removal should also be 1 per buip.

 

[bitsko]

I voted in imaginary username BECAUSE he had a different opinion than me. To avoid an echo chamber, to allow leftists to flourish in BU.

Now he wants to go on a commie purge.

Disgusting.
[doublepost=1555247254][/doublepost]isnt this buip quite literally greg maxwells advice?

dont act like cucks my dear BU lefties

 

[imaginary_username]

"Opinions" are all fun and games until you start tracking down where people live in twitter threads.

 

[Griffith]

isnt this buip quite literally greg maxwells advice?

dont act like cucks my dear BU lefties

no. this buip, as i have stated multiple times and solex already confirmed, does NOT change the rights of members already granted by the articles. it only clarifies them

regardless of this buip passing, since it is just for clarification purposes, you still have the rights to perform all of the actions listed in my changes

 

[Griffith]

@solex can you change the title of the thread from adjustment to clarification to match the title of the BUIP in the OP? Thanks

 

[solex]

Yeah. Didn't notice that tweak...

 

[Griffith]

thank you for the fix

 

[Roy Badami]

Nitpicking, but the threshold should be "greater than 50%" rather than "51%". Otherwise we are introducing an unnecessary difference between member removal BUIPs and other BUIPs, which will require changes to the voting software or aditional extra check/corrections to the results computed by the voting software.

EDIT: i.e. at present a normal BUIP (and therefore also a member removal BUIP, as per solex's interpretation) which achieved 50.5% support (and met the 50% quorum) would pass. After this change to the Articles, a member removal BUIP with 50.5% support would fail (as it would fail to meet the 51% threshold).

 

[Roy Badami]

Oops, sorry, it's worse than that. Article 2.4 as currently in force says "a majority of voters (51%)" - which to my mind is self-contradictory. Is the threshold "a majority of voters" or is it 51%? It can't be both...

IIRC, the voting system currently implements the threshold as a simple majority (>50%) rather than imposing a 51% threshold.

Ideally, we would take the opportunity of changing the Articles to fix this, and have both Article 2.4 and new Article 2.8 refer to "a majority of voters (greater than 50%)"

I also don't like 33% thresholds - I'd much prefer a one-third threshold. But I don't know which is actually coded in the voting system (or if indeed officer removal BUIP support is present in the voting system).

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami
Agreed that "greater than 50%" is optimal.
@Griffith I can update the OP with this text if you are OK with it?
edit: we need to progress to voting, so applying the small change.

Regarding the 33%, for such a rare event the voting system will only be indicative, hence a manual calculation will be made and evidenced before the BUIP is actioned.

 

[Griffith]

Yeah thats fine. i didnt catch that. thanks for updating. it should match the normal buip since that is how we are treating the ones currently being voted on

 

[torusJKL]

@Griffith
In general I think it's a good idea to make this part of the articles more clear.

But I had to reject it because of the following part

, however it must pass with a 75% super-majority of voters with at least 25% of members voting or greater than a 50% majority vote with at least 50% of members voting.

You lowered the difficulty for the super-majority (only 25% instead of 33%) and even further with the simple majority in case of 50% of the members voting.

I think that voting a member out should not be made easy hence I find the lowered difficulty an issue.

 

[Norway]

@torusJKL
Expect a quick purge.

 

[Griffith]

@torusJKL Member evictions should match normal BUIP passing requirements. This is not a change i made, these are the rules as they currently stand. this BUIP does not change any of the rights a member currently has. It only clarifies current rules, hence the BUIP name.

 

[freetrader]

Too bad this clarification BUIP didn't reach quorum.
I'm reminded of the old joke

"What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?"

"I don't know and I don't care."