### VOTING is CLOSED for BUIPs 6,38,40,41 & 42 ###

[Roy Badami]

It's a matter of perspective. I see 50% as the 'normal' quorum (this was the only quorum existing in the original Articles, right?) and the 25% rule to be a bit of a special case that was then added so we don't get completely paralysed by low turnout.

I don't believe the purpose of the 25/75 rule was to bias the the process significantly towards rejecting BUIPs over accepting them.

I agree that I am reinterpreting the Articles somewhat, but I think my interpretation is compatible with both the letter and spirit of the Articles.
[doublepost=1483568960][/doublepost]So, the Articles don't use the word "quorum" at all. All they say is:

A BUIP is adopted if accepted by a majority of voters (51%) with at least 50% of members voting OR a 75% super-majority of voters with at least 25% of members voting

The way I would choose to interpret quorum is as follows:

The quorum for a vote is 50% of members, except that if at least 75% of the votes cast are in favour, or if at least 75% of the votes cast are against, then the quorum for that vote is reduced to 25% of members. If multiple votes are held simultaneously then the quorum for each vote is determined independently.

This definition of quorum is entirely consistent with the Articles. I agree that @solex 's definition of quorum is consistent with the Articles, too - but I prefer mine because it's symmetrical.

 

[lunar]

@freetrader

Section 2 covers most of this.

2 weeks for review....

​

After this period, the officers may attach an opinion or counter BUIP to this BUIP. This package shall be presented to all members and opened for discussion for a minimum of a 2 week period. The Proposer may choose to extend this period for a maximum of 6 months. At the end of the public discussion period, members shall vote whether to adopt the BUIP. A BUIP is adopted if accepted by a majority of voters (51%) with at least 50% of members voting OR a 75% super -majority of voters with at least 25% of members voting, unless otherwise indicated in this document (BUIPs that change these articles or remove officers).

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. Voting shall be open for a minimum 48 hour period and a maximum of 5 days. Members who will not be available during that period may submit an early vote in a manner described by the Secretary. Members may not change their vote. All votes are publicly recorded​

​

I highlighted the section that perhaps should be used more? Especially if there is ongoing discussion, or perhaps to garner some consensus prior to the vote. As an example here - BUIP006. I saw little discussion on this and it seemed to me as an obvious proposal to be adopted but when voting occurred I was surprised to see important objections being raised.

 

[Roy Badami]

@solex I'd like to raise a point of order around the tally of the votes for BUIP040.

The Articles seem fairly clear that we vote FOR or AGAINST a BUIP - they say "members shall vote whether to adopt the BUIP". There's no provision in there for adopting only part of a BUIP.. Furthermore, no mention was made of this modified voting procedure prior to the vote.

Therefore IMHO any vote that purports to be a line item vote (i.e. for some items in the BUIP and against others) is an invalid vote. In my opinion, therefore, @deadalnix 's vote is invalid, as it is neither FOR nor AGAINST the BUIP, and the vote should not be counted. Similarly, @digitsu 's attempt to change vote should be disregarded, since the replacement vote is not a valid vote, and therefore @digitsu 's original, valid, vote should stand. (Actually, the original vote should stand anyway as the Articles say "Members may not change their vote.".)

So I'm afraid I make the vote count for BUIP040 as 11:4 and it fails to pass.

If we really are convinced that line item votes should be allowed for this vote, then only line items 1 and 3 of BUIP040 pass (12:4), but line item 2 fails (11:5).

I don't see any interpretation of the Articles in which BUIP040 passes in its entirety.

 

[freetrader]

I too am surprised that BUIP040 is given a line item treatment.

The BUIP040 text contains the statement:

If passed, this BUIP will be extended with the exact implemention of the "excessive sigops" metric...

This suggests to me very clearly that the author intended for the BUIP to be voted on as a single package, and was simply enumerating features contained.
Otherwise, the passage concerned would have been formulated as a line item.

I'll add that I read @solex's statement in this thread relating to the BUIP040 vote result as corresponding to Roy's interpretation where "item" 2 has failed, and only those items covered by the swaying votes would be sanctioned for implementation.

I tend to agree on the sentiment that vote changes should not be allowed, as the rules are quite clear about this.

 

[Roy Badami]

It's unfortunate, since BUIP040 (or some variant of it) is consensus-critical. But I think the solution is further outreach to all members, then a fresh two-week discussion and vote ASAP on BUIP40 (and probably BUIP38/BUIP41 at the same time; we can defer revisiting BUIP006 for now since it lacks the same level of urgency).

We'll be past the holiday season, and we'll have new members on board too - so hopefully we will get better participation. If there's a feeling that minor modifications to these BUIPs might make them more likely to pass we can discuss edits over the next few days before we open a new formal two week discussion process.

Thoughs?
[doublepost=1483574582,1483573927][/doublepost]

I'll add that I read @solex's statement in this thread relating to the BUIP040 vote result as corresponding to Roy's interpretation where "item" 2 has failed, and only those items covered by the swaying votes would be sanctioned for implementation.

Ah, I missed that. Thanks.

I tend to agree on the sentiment that vote changes should not be allowed, as the rules are quite clear about this.

Although actually in this case it makes no difference to the outcome whether we allow vote changes or not. I just mentioned it for completeness.

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami
Lots of good points and I will think about them for future votes. This vote was the first where most members were not of one mind and it showed in the vote thread.
I do consider the existing interpretation of minimum vote count (quorum) as valid according to the Articles. In terms of votes, I consider @deadalnix's vote as a "yes" (it mentions "yes" first and twice). so I hope that he and the Developer discuss the exception mentioned to ensure it is observed. It is up to them to do this in accordance with the spirit of the vote result.

At the end of the day BU is a community organization and people volunteer their time and effort to be involved. Their input is appreciated and intentions are important, and valued. We have to interpret the Articles accurately while at the same time maintaining enthusiasm for the project. I think this is being done, but anyone who considers otherwise is welcome to stand in January 2018 when my position is up for election.

I'll add that I read @solex's statement in this thread relating to the BUIP040 vote result as corresponding to Roy's interpretation where "item" 2 has failed, and only those items covered by the swaying votes would be sanctioned for implementation.

Yes. ...only the specific item mentioned would be sanctioned for implementation.

I tend to agree on the sentiment that vote changes should not be allowed, as the rules are quite clear about this.

This can also be interpreted that members cannot change their vote after the voting period ends.

We are going to put the voting mechanism into our website which will make the process a secret ballot*, and will also remove the opportunity for partial votes. Hopefully it will be available soon.

edit: proposal, requires successful vote on Articles change.

 

[Roy Badami]

The Articles say "All votes are publicly recorded." I take that to mean that we cannot use a secret ballot without modifying the articles.

 

[solex]

That proposal was made recently, and would indeed require a change in the Articles to permit it.
So, I should have used "proposed" not "will" allow secret ballots.

 

[Roy Badami]

I'm unsure at this point whether I'm in favour of using secret ballots for technical BUIPs, though I think I'd be okay with it for membership BUIPs and officer elections. EDIT: Anyway, that discussion is probably for another thread.

 

[solex]

Yeah. It was mentioned in the recent election for Secretary as we had three really good candidates and the public vote made choosing just a bit painful. Technical BUIPs I think are better publicly as they are done now.

 

[Roy Badami]

Re the BUIP040 vote, on further consideration, I'm happy to give the officers a fair degree of latitude to interpret the Articles in the broad interests of the project. We're a young organisation, and the Articles haven't been heavily battle-tested so we're always going to come up against edge cases. Rules lawyering on my part is probably counter-productive here.

There is obviously broad support for BUIP040 amongst the active membership, and it seems clear that line items 1 and 3 would have passed if proposed as separate BUIPs.

So given that I think your decision is beneficial to BU and more broadly to Bitcoin, and I withdraw my point of order.

 

[deadalnix]

I shared some thought on the situation on the BUIP040 thread: BUIP040: (passed) Emergent Consensus Parameters and Defaults for Large (>1MB) Blocks

I'm quoting here:


I think that's [refering rto @solex 's proposal to move on] a reasonable way forward. I'd like to introduce an habit here, if people are willing to stick to it.

When something doesn't go as planned, it is good to come up with actionable items in order to either avoid the problem to reproduce, or mitigate the cost of the problem. This needs to be done carefully as items needs to have low ongoing costs (making reducing cost often preferable).

In this specific case, an obvious actionable item is that BUIP should stay focused. The way BUIP040 was made bundled together letting no other choice than to accept the whole bundle or reject it. By keeping BUIP focused, I'm sure both the discussion around the BUIPs and the vote would have gone smoother.

The second item is that change to the consensus rules (not the code itself, but the rules it enforces) should go through BUIP. BUIP040 ended being somewhat critical because changes where made in the first place that turned out to not be ideal.

 

[freetrader]

Since we have a history on BUIPs being allowed to have options that can be voted on independently, I think we should make it a rule that this be explicitly pointed out in the BUIP itself (and in voting threads ahead of voting, but these are going to perhaps become a thing of the past soon).

A standardized BUIP header could have a YES / NO field to indicate whether items could be voted on independently.

@solexThe Articles seem fairly clear that we vote FOR or AGAINST a BUIP - they say "members shall vote whether to adopt the BUIP". There's no provision in there for adopting only part of a BUIP..

My take on this is that we should amend the Articles.
It is clearly a useful feature which we've used previously, and would want to retain.

 

[solex]

@Roy Badami
Thanks for the further information, your withdrawal of the point of order is noted. I will also bear your comments in mind for future votes.

 

[Roy Badami]

My take on this is that we should amend the Articles.
It is clearly a useful feature which we've used previously, and would want to retain.

In fact, it just struck me that we use it every time we vote on a membership BUIP!

 

[AdrianX]

The Articles say "All votes are publicly recorded." I take that to mean that we cannot use a secret ballot without modifying the articles.

@Roy Badami No, not entirely my understanding is votes can be validated and counted publicly however voters could remain anonymous. @Peter R campaigned for position of BU Secretary on the notion that he would work to introduce a secret ballot. https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip032-passed-vote-peter-r-for-secretary.1504/#post-29178

 

[freetrader]

It's unfortunate, since BUIP040 (or some variant of it) is consensus-critical. But I think the solution is further outreach to all members, then a fresh two-week discussion and vote ASAP on BUIP40 (and probably BUIP38/BUIP41 at the same time; we can defer revisiting BUIP006 for now since it lacks the same level of urgency).

We'll be past the holiday season, and we'll have new members on board too - so hopefully we will get better participation. If there's a feeling that minor modifications to these BUIPs might make them more likely to pass we can discuss edits over the next few days before we open a new formal two week discussion process.

Thoughts?

I am strongly in favor of revisiting BUIP38/BUIP41 by way of a renewed vote ASAP in order to get the matter of sticky gate resolved decisively.

 

[freetrader]

I've heard talk of an upcoming vote soon.

Can anyone confirm?

 

[solex]

@freetrader
Yes, commencing March 10th.

 

[freetrader]

Excellent news @solex . Link to ANN thread which I missed:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcing-next-bu-vote-march-10th-14th.1868/