### VOTING is CLOSED for BUIPs 62,63,64,65,66 & 67 ###

[VeritasSapere]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

BUIP062: YES
BUIP063: YES
BUIP064: YES
BUIP065: YES
BUIP066: YES

1. @Mike Aetherial : NO
2. @Crypto indo : NO
3. @shadders : NO
4. @Otaci : YES
5. @John Cunningham : YES
6. @Daybod : NO
7. @KevUnltd : NO
8. @Nic : YES
9. @Erik Beijnoff: YES

-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
ILdjOgbEAkL4TVGjLTon3Rz236jGfyPgzYxC2ENGDe03Y5aFs+Q5Is+khJXMmigHWdFblcG3sUKqvFcDhDMJIyg=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

Address: 1PQ1BB819gxUbDZX3aReBXx4r7zGo67jXi

 

[deadalnix]

BUIP062 FOR
BUIP063 FOR (Please disregard if you consider this a conflict of interest and consider abstain. I think this is inline with BU's values so I took the liberty to say yes).
BUIP064 ABSTAIN (It would be obviously a conflict of interest to do anything else).
BUIP065 FOR
BUIP066 FOR

BUIP067
1. AGAINST
2. AGAINST
3. AGAINST
4. AGAINST
5. AGAINST
6. AGAINST
7. AGAINST
8. ABSTAIN
9. FOR
===================
IIxsvkFZUGzG7/8sY9EBruOQl6bt9rJSlxcWVYoj/syIUwRJl7yxw8+2+htdWw50qWV/7O3XEoOCwJrG+QzaxXE=

 

[AdrianX]

@deadalnix I don't think anyone need abstain from a vote if there is a conflict of interest it's a collective decision.

In an ideal world the votes would be anonymous to allow the voter absolute privacy and to avoid vote buying.

as discusses before it should be possible to validate voter participation and accurately count and staying anonymous. This should be our end goal with the system.

the issues illustrated here @16:00 -24:00 min worth watching it all:

 

[chriswilmer]

Guys, I am really sorry but I can't sign this right now. If I vote now and sign later can that count? 48 hour notice hasn't been enough for me. Back-to-back meetings + childcare = nothing can get squeezed in.

BUIP062 FOR
BUIP063 FOR
BUIP064 FOR
BUIP065 ABSTAIN
BUIP066 FOR

BUIP067
1. AGAINST
2. AGAINST
3. AGAINST
4. AGAINST
5. AGAINST
6. AGAINST
7. AGAINST
8. ABSTAIN
9. FOR

===========================
Signature to be added shortly.

 

[Peter R]

@chriswilmer:

I apologize for the short notice. Voting has actually been open since Monday, but I don't think word got out sufficiently. Moving forward we need to find a better way to get the message out to our members, as I've heard several comments about people not finding out until the voting period was almost closed.

@awemany:

I'm wondering if we could integrate email notifications into your voting system. Members could update their email preferences by signing an email address with their voting key and submitting the signed message to the system. If a member has a valid email address associated with their profile, the voting system emails notifications to them.

 

[solex]

@chriswilmer
Perfectly fine.

@All
Marking the vote as closed. Results posted shortly.

 

[solex]

Voting on these BUIPs is now closed.
Thanks very much to all members who voted, and congratulations to the new members.

key: for:against:abstentions
The result is combined from the voting system and this thread.

BUIP062 PASSED 24:0:0
BUIP063 PASSED 23:0:0
BUIP064 CLOSED 13:8:2
BUIP065 PASSED 21:2:0
BUIP066 PASSED 24:0:0

BUIP067 New Members:
1. @Mike Aetherial DECLINED 1:8:2
2. @Crypto indo DECLINED 1:10:0
3. @shadders DECLINED 4:6:1
4. @Otaci DECLINED 9:4:1
5. @John Cunningham INDUCTED 12:3:2
6. @Daybod DECLINED 2:7:2
7. @KevUnltd DECLINED 1:7:2
8. @Nic INDUCTED 18:1:1
9. @Erik Beijnoff INDUCTED 17:2:1

Quorum 53/4 (14)
Quorum met, with 75% votes FOR, on BUIPs 62,63,65,66 and members 5,8,9
Note: totals to be updated pending one signature.

 

[adamstgbit]

BUIP064 CLOSED 13:8:2

NICE! no segwit for BU, BU is now exclusively building solutions for Bitcoin Cash!

 

[AdrianX]

I'm not opposed to having a BU segwit implementation but it needs to be deployed a little more strategical with minimal development time, and with the intent to build a more robust network that doesn't need it. I'd consider it again after the fork.

 

[adamstgbit]

I did not have time to review any of the new member applications and so i did not vote.
But, I have a Question...

Can they simply submit there request for membership again and be reconsidered on the next round?

@Otaci at first glance seems to me like qualifying member, if he was to re-submit... i think i'd vote for him on the next round.

@everyone_else_that_was_DECLINED, i would suggest engaging this forum more, making posts, hitting like button, etc... and re-submitting your request for membership.
[doublepost=1506221611,1506220832][/doublepost]

I'm not opposed to having a BU segwit implementation but it needs to be deployed a little more strategical with minimal development time, and with the intent to build a more robust network that doesn't need it. I'd consider it again after the fork.

I would reconsider it later, but i am definitely pleased that for the time being BUIP064 is a no go.

I find it a little funny that all the BU devs votes YES for BUIP064, and i wonder if they are disappointed with the results of the vote? and if they will respect the vote and not do any segwit code.

rejecting BUIP064 has a profound impact on BU, i think all that voted YES did so, so that BU would remain an implementation running on "bitcoin the one and only". and not because they liked segwit.
but about half of the members that voted, want BU to focus exclusively on Bitcoin Cash.

In anycase, I do think BU can pull a 180, implement segwit and get back on the bitcoin-segwit bandwagon at anytime, so perhaps the ramifications of rejecting BUIP064 isn't so decisive.

 

[solex]

Yes, the BUIP064 is probably the most contentious BUIP we have had yet. It did get more votes for than against but failed because 50% turnout is needed for a simple majority.

We will have to discuss further options, especially if Core forks itself off and creates its own alt with different PoW.

Anyway, regarding the point about re-applications. I think people who get more votes for than against, should feel welcome to try again some time. Perhaps giving more links to on-line history. Those who get involved first, such as @Erik Beijnoff who attended the Arnhem conference and has been active on slack for all this year, do have an inside track. This is really the best approach.

 

[AdrianX]

Can they simply submit there request for membership again and be reconsidered on the next round?

sure i don't see why not. but why add new members that don't partake in discussing ideas? I don't think we need many black box voters, I would like critical thinking and open discussion, I'd like to read debates.

I would reconsider it later, but i am definitely pleased that for the time being BUIP064 is a no go

me too actually, I think if we're paying developers to implement it it's a wast of good money at this time.

We will have to discuss further options, especially if Core forks itself off and creates its own alt with different PoW.

I know what to do when that happens, not sure BU is needed to help decentralize that chain.

 

[torusJKL]

I find it a little funny that all the BU devs votes YES for BUIP064, and i wonder if they are disappointed with the results of the vote? and if they will respect the vote and not do any segwit code.

rejecting BUIP064 has a profound impact on BU, i think all that voted YES did so, so that BU would remain an implementation running on "bitcoin the one and only". and not because they liked segwit.
but about half of the members that voted, want BU to focus exclusively on Bitcoin Cash.

In anycase, I do think BU can pull a 180, implement segwit and get back on the bitcoin-segwit bandwagon at anytime, so perhaps the ramifications of rejecting BUIP064 isn't so decisive.

In Switzerland we have direct democracy and it is well known that the people do not always vote in the interest of the government. But in the end it is the will of the people and the country is still here.

Of course the devs can create a SegWit version in their time but if BUIP064 is really an important step for BU I invite them to make their case here and get the funding from BU.

There was almost no talk why it would be needed, who would want it and how much resources it would take.

I think waiting for the fork in November would be best. We can reevaluate shortly after.