BUIP141: (closed) Restrict voting rights for Non-publicly identified members

[solex]

@torusJKL , the next vote is announced, you can have this included if you consider it ready.

 

[solex]

@torusJKL
Please note that voting is moved to 5-10 March, requiring an earlier decision on your part.

 

[Roy Badami]

I'm sympathetic to this idea, but that may be because I came to the net in the days of USENET and mailing lists when real names were the norm. To be honest, I'd like to hear more from our anonymous members as to why the feel the need to remain anonymous before I reach a conclusion.

But that aside, if we decided this was the way to go, then I'm still unsure how it would work. How do you identify a non-publicly identified member? Or, let me turn it around: how do you identify someone as a publicly identified member?

I post using my real name (I have never seen the need to invent another). But you only have my assertion that it is my real name. Just because it looks like a name, and maybe has a few Google hits, what does that prove? Ok, I've met solex, so he knows I exist (but it's not like I showed him ID or anything). But if I hadn't, would I be any more "publicly identified" than people with obviously pseudonymous handles?

So, I'm sympathetic to the idea, in principle (but open to be convinced otherwise). I also see that something like this might become a necessity when we finally put the organisation on a legal footing. I just don't understand how it would work in practice.

 

[Griffith]

@Roy Badami when the org is put into legal footing the only recognized people would be the officers.
BU does not directly employ people. It does not have shareholders or anything similar. At most you can consider BU members as people of the general public that have undergone a very light vetting whom BU queries before officially making decisions.

The officers would more than likely have some official capacity in the org either be it as registered owners or board members (depending on type of company being formed). But the rest of us really wouldnt exist so there would be no need to identify us.

 

[torusJKL]

@solex please include this BUIP in the next voting.

 

[solex]

@torusJKL OK. This is noted.

 

[digitsu]

This is a good move to starting to clean up BU. No more anonymous accounts affecting real votes. Democracy doesn't work when it can be dogpiled by immigrant nameless voters

 

[Griffith]

This is a good move to starting to clean up BU. No more anonymous accounts affecting real votes. Democracy doesn't work when it can be dogpiled by immigrant nameless voters

sounds like you don't support universal suffrage.

 

[79b79aa8]

OT

 

[79b79aa8]

@solex @Peter R

in order for BU members to properly decide on how to vote on BUIP 141, can you please provide an update of the legal status of the organization? there is a legitimate worry about liabilities.

 

[Griffith]

@solex @Peter R

in order for BU members to properly decide on how to vote on BUIP 141, can you please provide an update of the legal status of the organization? there is a legitimate worry about liabilities.

I am not a lawyer but there was some research done on this a little whle back.

the status should be irrelevant WRT voting on this BUIP.

Members as defined by the AoF are not legally recognised in any capacity. Members are not employees, do not hold stake/equity, are not investors, are not registered members (in terms of member as defined in an LLC), etc. It would be a weak argument at best to consider the AoF a legal contract in some sort of court setting. The BU voting system from a purely legal standpoint is analogous to a company doing limiting polling for market research. As far as members (as defined by the AoF) go, there should be no liabilities for anything in the scope of BU voting.

 

[79b79aa8]

thank you @Griffith.

it would have been desirable for officers to communicate to members that such research was conducted.

it would still be desirable to get confirmation from elected officers prior to the vote that the above is, to the best of their knowledge, a sound legal position.

even if the legal status of the organization is irrelevant WRT voting on BUIP141, it will not be WRT to voting in the next election, unless only the same officers run for election.

and in any case members should evidently be appraised of the legal status of the organization regardless of the BUIP.

@solex @Peter R @theZerg

 

[Griffith]

thank you @Griffith.

it would have been desirable for officers to communicate to members that such research was conducted.

it would still be desirable to get confirmation from elected officers prior to the vote that the above is, to the best of their knowledge, a sound legal position.

even if the legal status of the organization is irrelevant WRT voting on BUIP141, it will not be WRT to voting in the next election, unless only the same officers run for election.

and in any case members should evidently be appraised of the legal status of the organization regardless of the BUIP.

@solex @Peter R @theZerg

I should have been more clear, the research was not done by the officers in any official capacity, there was a conversation some months ago on.... somewhere. i dont recall exactly who, but people were providing web resources to try and figure this out. I dont believe any of the officers were in that discussion. the discussion was speculative. A lawyer or someone who already has the opinion of a law professional should be asked if you want anything past the speculative answer of that discussion from last year.

WRT the legal status, BU is a registered active non profit. Basic company organisation dictates that some board members be appointed. At a minimum this would be the person who went through the registration process (solex). he would have to comment on if the other officers were added as board members or not.

 

[79b79aa8]

thank you @Griffith. it is not clear to me why @solex hasn't initiated a discussion about the registration process with the members of the organization. we are here to move forward and to help.

 

[79b79aa8]

I'd like to hear more from our anonymous members as to why the feel the need to remain anonymous before I reach a conclusion.

@Roy Badami , i have so far been a NPIM. the reason is that i have a modestly public non-bitcoin life and i when i joined i did not want my IRL identity to be associated with currency speculation. i did offer to disclose my identity to officers, but was never asked to do it.

yet i have voted in favor of this BUIP: if it passes, i will have to either identify myself to officers, or have my voting privileges restricted.

this does not mean i have to participate in BU activities using the name on my birth certificate. it means officers need to be satisfied no member is getting to vote twice, under two different handles.

at present BU votes can be gamed with relative ease. it is possible for voting to be subverted, and it is also possible for anyone to cast doubt on the organization's decision making process. this is a serious vulnerability. members can curtail it by voting in favor of BIUP141.

 

[dgenr8]

Voting no on this. The time to worry about duplicate identities is when approving the membership of anonymous accounts, and there, the bar should be very high.

 

[torusJKL]

@dgenr8
The advantage of this BUIP over not approving anonymous accounts when voting for new members is that anonymous users could still become members and vote on most BUIPs.