Lapsed members

[Roy Badami]

Since I understand we are now in the position of having (former) members who have now lapsed through not having voted in over 1 year, I'd like to just confirm that we all agree what the implications of the Articles are in this case (to avoid any points of order in future votes).

The Articles define a member as follows:

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.

It seems fairly clear to me, therefore, that once the 1 year timer expires, that person is no longer a member - and therefore would have to reapply (and by approved by BUIP) if they wish to be a member again. In particular, they can't just reactivate their membership by voting in some future vote (and any vote cast would be disregarded as being from a non-member).

Does this tally with other people's understanding on this?

roy

 

[solex]

I agree with your observation that the lapsed members are now non-members and would need to re-apply.
I will notify them.

 

[lunar]

This might have implications if we only have say two votes a year ? miss one and you're out ?

 

[Bagatell]

Abstentions would also need to be rethought.

 

[kostialevin]

Voting is a requirement for being member?
If I'm not sure of what is the better I prefer not to vote, but for sure I feel myself engaged with the Bitcoin Unlimited philosophy.

 

[Windowly]

This rule might be something we should rework.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Voting is a requirement for being member?
If I'm not sure of what is the better I prefer not to vote, but for sure I feel myself engaged with the Bitcoin Unlimited philosophy.

Can't you just vote "NO VOTE"?

Why would somebody want to be a member if they didn't want to vote? (Honest question)

 

[Roy Badami]

I quite like the idea of a formal abstention being allowed (with a formal abstention counting as a 'vote' for the purpose of this rule). It would definitely be a perverse incentive if members felt obliged to cast a substantive vote on an issue where they felt they lacked the expertise to do so, just to keep their membership current.

(I'm not personally hugely enamoured with the 1 year lapse rule as it stands FWIW, but I also recognise that there needs to be some way of lapsing inactive members, otherwise quorum will become progressively harder and harder to obtain - and quite probably eventually impossible.)
[doublepost=1484079798][/doublepost]Also, I would wouldn't want to put any barriers in place for lapsed member wishing to rejoin. I think the fact that they reengaged with us sufficiently to reapply for membership would probably be enough for me to vote in favour - I personally wouldn't be expecting them to have to justify their membership again.

 

[AdrianX]

Can't you just vote "NO VOTE"?

Why would somebody want to be a member if they didn't want to vote? (Honest question)

Yes the intent here is to have participating members, a spoiled vote "NO VOTE" is a vote it's just a vote for none of the presented options. It should be factored into the vote count.
[doublepost=1484085695][/doublepost]I'm for requesting to rejoin afte ones membership has lapsing. It keeping the membership active. I'd be open to extending the period from 12 months to 15 or 20 months.

 

[lunar]

I think a more practical solution would be to move lapsed members to probationary status.

Probationary accounts may reactivate voting privileges if a formal signed request is made (without objection?) no later than (one week?) prior to an upcoming vote. Should a probationary account fail to reactivate and miss a vote whilst they are under probation they no longer retain any BU membership and must fully reapply.

This essentially gives members a one strike and your out period after their membership has lapsed.

The other thought I had, was it seems to make more sense to measure membership activity as votes missed (maybe 3 or 4) rather than a 1 year time span. That is unless we have a fixed numbers of votes within a year period.

What happens if one year we have a period of extremely stable protocol and there is no need for any votes ? My dream scenario.


edit: It would be pretty amazing to have all this automated on the Bitcoin Unlimited Website. Votes could be cast and signatures could be automatically verified.

 

[solex]

The other thought I had, was it seems to make more sense to measure membership activity as votes missed (maybe 3 or 4) rather than a 1 year time span. That is unless we have a fixed numbers of votes within a year period.

Now, that is a great idea! Vote events are likely to be at least every two months, so we could allow 6 votes to be missed, and maybe keep the 1 year as a safeguard as well.
I agree that those rejoining should not be presented with hurdles.

 

[AdrianX]

Good discussion but keep in mind some members may abstain from voting on technical issue if they don't feel confident to make an objective choice.

 

[Mengerian]

This discussion got me thinking, do we have provision for some sort of annual report?

Most organizations have some kind of AGM (Annual General Meeting) where the executive presents an overview of activities from the year, and a summary of finances.

I don't see provision for an AGM in the Articles of Federation, but it might be a good practice to implement. It could allow us to approve an ongoing budget to allow the executive to deal with ongoing operational costs and incidental items.

It would also help the members to have some sort of periodic status update to help make decisions on various issues. a summary of BUs financial holdings, and projected expenditures would be very useful.

I don't want to impose additional work, but if implemented properly a periodic AGM could hopefully help smooth BU governance, and reduce the need for votes on smaller incidental items.

 

[freetrader]

Another idea: members that do not yet feel confident enough to vote could declare themselves non-voting members for as long as they wish, and they would not count towards quorum on votes, but their membership status would also not be further penalized.

Once they become voting members, I think they should vote substantively (not abstain) on some minimum (50%?) of issues, or go dormant (become non-voting members again).

What use are voting members if they can't inform themselves about the issues towards which their votes are required by quorum? So I think they have a duty towards the project to inform themselves adequately to keep it functioning.

 

[awemany]

Yet another idea: Make a BUIP to change the articles so that members who have been wholly inactive for 1+ years are not counted towards reaching the necessary quorum. Add another threshold, 5 years maybe(?) after which members are auto-removed due to inactivity.
[doublepost=1484650267][/doublepost]Oh, by the way: If someone votes 'ABSTAIN' on any BUIP, does that count as a vote to prevent membership lapse? I'd guess it does, but should we maybe make a BUIP to clarify the articles in this regard?

 

[theZerg]

The sole right of the membership is to vote. Membership isn't for the "cred", its to actively participate in the growth and evolution of this Bitcoin client. If you are not exercising that right, we need you to not be formally a member so the people who do vote can make quorum. Of course you remain welcome to participate in these forums and be a friend of Bitcoin Unlimited!
And certainly you may abstain on any vote by signing your vote saying that you've abstained. By doing so you will reduce quorum by 1 member, show you remain involved, and remain a member.

These documents can't handle every edge condition. If we only have 1 or 2 votes per year, which I seriously doubt will ever happen, I'm sure the officers of BU will be sensitive to the situation.

 

[solex]

@Mengerian
I have been thinking about this. The BUF will need AGMs and maybe there will be some way to organise one where many members can participate. Perhaps at a live meet with video conferencing facilities.
Annual accounts and a report are desirable and should be available ahead of an AGM.

 

[Mengerian]

@solex Are there requirements for the Foundation that the AGM be "live"? Even a slack channel, or forum thread may be sufficient.

Another idea, it might be nice to combine an AGM with another conference, similar to the one we had in San Francisco. That conference was really great.

 

[solex]

@Mengerian
For an incorporated non-profit an AGM is necessary but no stipulation on its nature. So, yes, we could schedule it with a conference, e.g. like at SF, and have a window of a couple of hours for an AGM with remote attendees on video link.
I thought SF was great too, we are discussing the idea of another in June.

 

[chainstor]

Has any formal decision been reached regarding voting?