Revise BSIP-01: BSIP Purpose and Guidelines

[abitmore]

The [BSIP-01: BSIP Purpose and Guidelines] document is a bit outdated, and also contains wording that can be improved.

• BSIP Editors. There are 3 editors listed in BSIP-01. However, among the list, only @xeroc is still relatively active in the community, in the meanwhile other community members have been taking time doing the editors' job. How to choose editors probably worth discussing.

• The process. E.G. we're heavily relying on Github to collaborate, but not sending emails back and forth.

• Shareholders. It's mentioned by some community members that we should avoid using the "share" word due to concerns about laws.

• The description about "accepted" status is confusing.

  People wishing to submit BSIPs first should propose their idea as github issue first. After discussion you will be assigned a number for the bsip and can send a pull request for your draft. Once consensus among discussion participants is reached, the status can be switched to accepted. From this time on, major changes of the document will not be permitted.
  ...
  Once a BSIP has been published, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the shareholders via approval voting, the status will be changed to "Accepted". A BSIP can also be "Rejected" by shareholders.

Maybe there are more elements that can be updated.

[bangzi1001]

IMHO, witnesses are voted by BTS Holders/Proxy to run Bitshares blockchain and thus they should have privilege in this BSIP(BitShares Improvement Proposals and Protocols) repo.

[pmconrad]

Extending on that logic you could demand that the committee and all workers should have privileges as well. Which obviously doesn't make sense.

[abitmore]

The description about "accepted" status is confusing.

People wishing to submit BSIPs first should propose their idea as github issue first. After discussion you will be assigned a number for the bsip and can send a pull request for your draft. Once consensus among discussion participants is reached, the status can be switched to accepted. From this time on, major changes of the document will not be permitted.
...
Once a BSIP has been published, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the shareholders via approval voting, the status will be changed to "Accepted". A BSIP can also be "Rejected" by shareholders.

[clockworkgr]

woops...posted accidentally on BSIP rather than BAIP purposes...moved

[bangzi1001]

The description about "accepted" status is confusing.

accepted = Ready for Voting

Accepted = Approved by BTS Holders

Is confusing especially for those using translation service. Both accepted and Accepted make no difference.

[wenhuadream]

• BSIP Editors. There are 3 editors listed in BSIP-01. However, among the list, only @xeroc is still relatively active in the community, in the meanwhile other community members have been taking time doing the editors' job. How to choose editors probably worth discussing.

would like to ask how these 3 editors choose? Is the community vote specified?

IMHO, bsip management, sometimes will use the power to make private, let his bsip pass quickly, block some BSIP that he has opinions.

How to supervise the manager of BSIP?

[wenhuadream]

accepted = Ready for Voting

Accepted = Approved by BTS Holders

This is not a wise choice and will create ambiguity.

[pmconrad]

would like to ask how these 3 editors choose? Is the community vote specified?

I believe it was @xeroc who started formalizing our governance process. I suppose he simply inserted some people who volunteered at the time. There was no community vote on this at the time, and IMO there need not be one as long as the editor adheres to this:

The editors don't pass judgement on BSIPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part.

There has been an indirect vote on BSIP editors. The current core worker explicitly mentions BSIP management as one of the core team's tasks. The worker was accepted by the community.

sometimes will use the power to make private, let his bsip pass quickly, block some BSIP that he has opinions.

This is indeed what has happened with BSIP-76 and the reverting of BSIP-83. Plus, the removal of the core team from BSIP management by @abitmore was in blatant disregard of a shareholder decision (i. e. the core worker proposal).

I think you know very well what you're talking about, because that's exactly what you are doing over in the BAIPs repository.

[wenhuadream]

I believe it was @xeroc who started formalizing our governance process. I suppose he simply inserted some people who volunteered at the time. There was no community vote on this at the time, and IMO there need not be one as long as the editor adheres to this:

These 3 editors need to vote, or the manager needs to vote, or need some kind of standard.

sometimes will use the power to make private, let his bsip pass quickly, block some BSIP that he has opinions.

This is indeed what has happened with BSIP-76 and the reverting of BSIP-83. Plus, the removal of the core team from BSIP management by @abitmore was in blatant disregard of a shareholder decision (i. e. the core worker proposal).

I think you know very well what you're talking about, because that's exactly what you are doing over in the BAIPs repository.

@abitmore @wenhuadream This specific draft is out of scope for the BSIP repository based on:

The BCSSCIP (BitShares Committee's SmartCoins Improvement Proposal) was recently introduced for all informational topics related to Committee-owned BitAssets.
SCSSCIP1 https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/11 defines the repsoitory sepatation
All protocol changes will continue to be proposed, reviewed and approved within the scope of the established BSIP process.
@wenhuadream Please connect with Committee members @bangzi1001 @abitmore @jademont @bitcrab @xeroc @OpenLedgerApp @clockworkgr and others to raise your proposal according to their process. I suggest your new draft include a summary of the discussions herein and continue further discussions there.

Closing.

This is a non-existent committee, an unestablished standard. One person used this reason to close our bsip. Some people use their powers to make our community unfairly treated.

Is it beyond authority? Who is responsible for this? How to supervise?

[wenhuadream]

My advice is that there can be no privilege. All actions must be authorized by the community. The embodiment of the community is the committee
All related libraries belong to the community. So the highest authority should be the committee..

[shulthz]

There has been an indirect vote on BSIP editors. The current core worker explicitly mentions BSIP management as one of the core team's tasks. The worker was accepted by the community.

En, that's a very interesting rhetoric，i think all the holders need to know how it was happened.
This is just like a a company provides a worker to a team, and soon afterwards the holders of
the company found they lost their authority of the company, and they need to listen the order of the team now.

There have a very clear authority rule and priority:
The community（holders of bts）→ The committee → BSIP Editors.

BSIP Editors must be voted in by the committee.
BSIP Editors must come from the active committee and wittness.
Any authority claim in a worker must be unacceptable and ineffective!!!
The committee can delegate and revoke the authority of github and must have the highest authority of all related libraries.

I think we all clear know that the committee were voted in by the holders of bts.

Must make the BSIP process clearly :
Write a BSIP → Discuss and comment → Request a BSIP number → Deliberated and assigned a BSIP number by the committees( or grantee of committees) → BSIP status: Accepted → Voted by holders of BTS → BSIP status: Approved → Development → Pull request → Merge..

Settlement of Disputes

If somebody or some team questions the action of BSIP by committee( or grantee of committees), they can ask a committee vote which must be submitted by three committees together at least, or they didn't believe the committees, they can ask a witness vote which must be submitted by five witnesses together at least.

---

Shareholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

[pmconrad]

There have a very clear authority rule:
The community（holders of bts）→ The committee → BSIP Editors.
The committee can delegate and revoke the authority of github and must have the highest authority of all related libraries.

There is no such rule. You just made that up.

Again, the job of the BSIP editor is to make sure that topics are prepared in a standardized way, with the purpose of having a clear definition what it means if a BSIP is voted on by the shareholders. The editor should be neutral wrt the ideas presented in a BSIP.

Write a BSIP → Discuss → Ask a BSIP number → Discussed and approved a BSIP number by the committee( or grantee of committees) → Voted by holders of BTS → Development → Pull request → Merge..

Appointing the committee as a gatekeeper to BSIPs is just one more step towards centralization.
Anyone should be allowed to present an idea to the shareholders and have them vote on it. Hence the editor must be neutral.

One person used this reason to close our bsip.

He did so after someone from the committee (!) suggested that BitAsset subjects should be discussed in a separate repository. Note that he did not reject it or anything, he just asked you to move it to a place where the committee wants to have it.

[pmconrad]

En, that's a very interesting rhetoric

Quote from the proposal:

Core Team Scope
The primary focus of the Core Team remains maintenance and development of the core protocol and oversight of the BitShares Improvement Proposals (BSIP) process.

The worker has been accepted by the shareholders, hence the shareholders have approved that the core team performs this job. Fact, not rhetoric.

This is just like a a company provides a worker to a team, and soon afterwards the holders of
the company found they lost their authority of the company, and they need to listen the order of the team now.

Show me where the core worker took over authority of the project. We (the core team, except abit) have always followed the established processes. It was abit and bitcrab who forced BSIP-76 through without proper discussion, ignoring community comments. And it was abit who single-handedly reverted a BSIP that had seen discussion, and where community comments were addressed.

[wenhuadream]

One person used this reason to close our bsip.

He did so after someone from the committee (!) suggested that BitAsset subjects should be discussed in a separate repository. Note that he did not reject it or anything, he just asked you to move it to a place where the committee wants to have it.

1：BCSSCIP ，This is a non-existent committee,BAIP is an unestablished standard at that time 。It's just a suggestion. Can use it to close bsip?

2：@wenhuadream Please connect with Committee members @bangzi1001 @abitmore @jademont @bitcrab @xeroc @OpenLedgerApp @clockworkgr and others to raise your proposal according to their process
No standards have been established, and someone has the right to appoint a management committee?

You have nothing wrong, I killed you first, then said that you were killed to make something meaningful. Suitable?

3：Why is BSIP83 assigned a BSIP number so quickly? Haven't been fully discussed?a political game?

Is it beyond authority? Who is responsible for this? How to supervise?

[wenhuadream]

Core Team Scope
The primary focus of the Core Team remains maintenance and development of the core protocol and oversight of the BitShares Improvement Proposals (BSIP) process.

The worker has been accepted by the shareholders, hence the shareholders have approved that the core team performs this job. Fact, not rhetoric.

I have to say that it turns out that the management of BSIP is lacking in supervision. My advice is that the committee has the highest authority. Community Oversight committee.

This is just like a a company provides a worker to a team, and soon afterwards the holders of
the company found they lost their authority of the company, and they need to listen the order of the team now.

Show me where the core worker took over authority of the project. We (the core team, except abit) have always followed the established processes. It was abit and bitcrab who forced BSIP-76 through without proper discussion, ignoring community comments. And it was abit who single-handedly reverted a BSIP that had seen discussion, and where community comments were addressed.

I understand that all the information is that abit is the core team and abit is also an excellent core developer. Is my information wrong? What confuse me? The community fired abit? When did this happen?

You are a team, thank you！

[shulthz]

There is no such rule. You just made that up.

That's the most interesting part of your whole thought.
If the community didn't have the highest authority of all related libraries? who will have?
If a BSIP can't get the support of the committee why it should have a BSIP number? I think everyone should clear know what the committees represent.
If the author can't get the support of the committee, give it a bsip number or pull it to vote by holder of bts is meaningless and a waste of time. Now the author of BSIP was so lazy to seek the support of committees or witnesses first?!

Appointing the committee as a gatekeeper to BSIPs is just one more step towards centralization.

This thought is shame for the holder of bts, as previously said, everyone should clear know what the committees represent. If this is centralization, controlled by a worker team is more dangerous and centralised, when sombody write a BSIP and want a BSIP number, if the worker team refused to give, then what the author of BSIP should do? or obey the reason be interpreted flexibly by the worker team?
If someone want present an idea to the holders of bts, present it to the committees first, if he can't get support of committees or witnesses, then pull his idea to vote by holder of bts, just like pull a rubbish to the holders of bts, why the holder of bts should eat what this BSIP want them to eat? and why the holder of bts should believe a BSIP not got the support of the committees or witnesses? or just the worker team thinks this BSIP is right and wants to pull it to vote by the holder?
Oh, or only the worker team concerned about the interests of the holder of bts, but not the committees or witnesses the representative of the holer of bts?! How ridiculous the idea was.

Anyone should be allowed to present an idea to the shareholders and have them vote on it. Hence the editor must be neutral.

Oh, Yes, the editor must be neutral! But the neutral should and must only be for the community, not for everyone, BSIP was not a dustbin, especially the BSIP with number, the edior was not only a neutral position, and a position to make sure the BSIP with number is quality and good for the community, so somebody want to pull his idea to vote by holder of bts, get a BSIP first, if he want to get a BSIP number, must get the support first and prove his thought is which really concerned about the interests of the community!
and who will maker sure the editor is neutral?

Write a BSIP → Discuss → Ask a BSIP number → Discussed and approved a BSIP number by the committee( or grantee of committees) → Voted by holders of BTS → Development → Pull request → Merge..

If somebody or some team questions the action of BSIP by committee( or grantee of committees), they can ask a committee vote which must be submitted by three committees together at least, or they didn't believe the committees, they can ask a witness vote which must be submitted by five witnesses together at least.

If this is not fair enought, give a fair one!

[pmconrad]

：BCSSCIP ，This is a non-existent committee,BAIP is an unestablished standard at that time 。It's just a suggestion. Can use it to close bsip?

It was emerging as a new standard set by the committee. Closing a PR is non-destructive, since it can be re-opened at any time. So no harm was done. I believe it was done in good faith.

No standards have been established, and someone has the right to appoint a management committee?

To my knowledge, this is the list of people that made up the elected committee at the time. According to your own logic, the shareholders do have the right to appoint this committee.

Is it beyond authority? Who is responsible for this? How to supervise?

The assignment of a serial number is not a critical governance task. It was a simple job that Ryan had been doing for quite some time before you appeared here. I don't see how that needs any more supervision than exists.

I have to say that it turns out that the management of BSIP is lacking in supervision.

That's your opinion. If you want to have it that way - write a BSIP and let the community vote.

I understand that all the information is that abit is the core team and abit is also an excellent core developer. Is my information wrong? What confuse me? The community fired abit? When did this happen?

@abitmore is listed in the core worker proposal, yes. He is an excellent developer, yes.
What I'm saying is that abit's violation of existing standards and procedures and his ignorance of a shareholder decision has been done on his own, without the consent of the rest of the core team. The remaining core team members have always adhered to existing standards and policies.

why the holder of bts should eat what this BSIP want them to eat?

BTS holders can decide themselves what they want to eat. But we're not talking about pushing something down their throats here, we're talking about writing the menu so they can choose.

If a BSIP can't get the support of the committee why it should have a BSIP number?

Because the shareholders alone have the right to decide on a BSIP, not the committee.

who will maker sure the editor is neutral?

If the editor turns out to be biased, he can be replaced. abit was clearly not neutral when he pushed BSIP-76 through, nor when he reverted BSIP-83. Now it's Stefan's job AFAIK. See how it works?

Also, what makes you think that the committee would be more neutral than the work done by the core team in the past two years (abit aside)?

[shulthz]

BTS holders can decide themselves what they want to eat. But we're not talking about pushing something down their throats here, we're talking about writing the menu so they can choose.

Yes, we're talking about writing the menu so they can choose, but not a menu made by any people.

Because the shareholders alone have the right to decide on a BSIP, not the committee.

They have the right to decide on a BSIP, but not a menu made by any people, as you say, want get a BSIP number? let the holder to vote.

If the editor turns out to be biased, he can be replaced. abit was clearly not neutral when he pushed BSIP-76 through, nor when he reverted BSIP-83. Now it's Stefan's job AFAIK. See how it works?

Also, what makes you think that the committee would be more neutral than the work done by the core team in the past two years (abit aside)?

You tell me if the editor turns out to be biased, he can be replaced, how to replaced? where is the rule? the standard should not bedefined by a person or team.
and you tell me why he can't push BSIP-76 and why he can't reverted BSIP-83?
If BSIP76 not got enought support from Committees? or BSIP-83 got any support from Committees?
What is Committee? need i said again and again? Committee is a shit position? and the voter behind the Committee is shit?
A BSIP only can make, push and be decided by a worker team?

Oh, what makes you think the core team is more neutral than the committee? or only the core team concerned about the interests of the holder of bts, but not the committees or witnesses the representative of the holer of bts?!
What is "Core Team", who give the authority to the "Core Team", and who oversight the "Core Team"? "Core Team" is only a small team, you think it is neutral than the committees voted by holders of bts?

[pmconrad]

Yes, we're talking about writing the menu so they can choose, but not a menu made by any people.

I don't understand. BSIPs have been proposed by many people in the past.

They have the right to decide on a BSIP, but not a menu made by any people, as you say, want get a BSIP number? let the holder to vote.

Why do you insist on the importance of assigning a number? The number has no meaning, it only serves as an identifier. You need an identifier if you want to talk about something. For example if you want to vote on assigning identifiers you must identify the thing that should receive the identifier. See how pointless that is?

You tell me if the editor turns out to be biased, he can be replaced, how to replaced? where is the rule? the standard was not defined by a person or team.

There is no rule because in the past it worked fine without one.

why he can't push BSIP-76 and why he can't reverted BSIP-83?

Read BSIP-1.
BSIP-76 was pushed without any meaningful discussion. Opposing comments were simply ignored.
BSIP-83 has seen much discussion before being merged, most comments were addressed, and it was technically complete. There is no precedent of a BSIP ever being thrown out of the repository.

What is Committee? need i said again and again? Committee is a shit position? and the voter behind the Committee is shit?

I never said that.

A BSIP only can make, push and be decided by a worker team?

No. Like I said, BSIPs have been created by many people.

what makes you think the core team is more neutral than the committee?

You didn't answer my question. I will still answer yours:

The committee consists of several influential members, many of which are running or creating a business on top of BitShares. A business owner will usually not act neutral wrt the blockchain, he will act in the interests of his business.

The core team on the other hand have been elected by the shareholders, and are being paid by the blockchain. To my knowledge, they do not have conflicting interests. Of course this does not prove neutrality, but I can say with a good conscience that we have always tried very hard to act neutral. I have had my own disagreements with some of the more recent BSIPs, but I have never blocked them nor reverted them after they were merged. Instead I have tried to make my point in the discussion during BSIP creation. And I have accepted them being merged.

What is "Core Team", who give the authority to the "Core Team", and who oversight the "Core Team"?

As you can read up here: https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-02-bitshares-core

The Core Team is comprised of an established group of community members who have demonstrated their ability to collaborate as a decentralized team

The core team has been given authority by the shareholders, by way of worker ID 1.14.163 being approved by the shareholders, like I already said. The core team is self-organized, therefore the is no "overseer" (which is true for all BitShares worker proposals btw). A limited form of oversight is present in the form of an escrow who checks that actual work within the scope of the proposal is delivered for each invoice.

[wenhuadream]

：BCSSCIP ，This is a non-existent committee,BAIP is an unestablished standard at that time 。It's just a suggestion. Can use it to close bsip?

It was emerging as a new standard set by the committee. Closing a PR is non-destructive, since it can be re-opened at any time. So no harm was done. I believe it was done in good faith.

As far as I know, I personally experienced that the BAIP Management Committee was not established at the time. Have it been advised by the community? Why not let the community discuss in advance?

Is it appropriate to use a private purpose to unconditionally close someone‘s issue? What I want to emphasize is that even didn't give me a BSIP number, and didn't give me any hints. used a non-existent committee, the unestablished standard, and closed my bsip.

Please don't shy away from this.

No standards have been established, and someone has the right to appoint a management committee?

To my knowledge, this is the list of people that made up the elected committee at the time. According to your own logic, the shareholders do have the right to appoint this committee.

Who appointed? When was it appointed? Who saw the appointment in the community? Who is entitled to appoint? Has the community voted?

Is it beyond authority? Who is responsible for this? How to supervise?

The assignment of a serial number is not a critical governance task. It was a simple job that Ryan had been doing for quite some time before you appeared here. I don't see how that needs any more supervision than exists.

“simple job” ？？？？No supervision required?？？
I am sorry to hear such words.

I have to say that it turns out that the management of BSIP is lacking in supervision.

That's your opinion. If you want to have it that way - write a BSIP and let the community vote.

I am very happy to see “ let the community vote”
I thought you forgot to need a community vote.

I understand that all the information is that abit is the core team and abit is also an excellent core developer. Is my information wrong? What confuse me? The community fired abit? When did this happen?

@abitmore is listed in the core worker proposal, yes. He is an excellent developer, yes.
What I'm saying is that abit's violation of existing standards and procedures and his ignorance of a shareholder decision has been done on his own, without the consent of the rest of the core team. The remaining core team members have always adhered to existing standards and policies.

What I emphasize is that for the outside world, for the community, no matter what fox does or what abit does, you are all a team.

[pmconrad]

As far as I know, I personally experienced that the BAIP Management Committee was not established at the time.

I'm talking about the committee which is elected by the shareholders. I'm not aware that we have more than one.

“simple job” ？？？？No supervision required?？？

Please explain why the assignment of serial numbers would be a critical part of our governance system and why it needs supervision.

[wenhuadream]

As far as I know, I personally experienced that the BAIP Management Committee was not established at the time.

I'm talking about the committee which is elected by the shareholders. I'm not aware that we have more than one.

@abitmore @wenhuadream This specific draft is out of scope for the BSIP repository based on:

The BCSSCIP (BitShares Committee's SmartCoins Improvement Proposal) was recently introduced for all informational topics related to Committee-owned BitAssets.
SCSSCIP1 https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/11 defines the repsoitory sepatation
All protocol changes will continue to be proposed, reviewed and approved within the scope of the established BSIP process.
@wenhuadream Please connect with Committee members @bangzi1001 @abitmore @jademont @bitcrab @xeroc @OpenLedgerApp @clockworkgr and others to raise your proposal according to their process. I suggest your new draft include a summary of the discussions herein and continue further discussions there.
Closing.
No standards have been established, and someone has the right to appoint a management committee?

You have nothing wrong, I killed you first, then said that you were killed to make something meaningful. Suitable?

“simple job” ？？？？No supervision required?？？

Please explain why the assignment of serial numbers would be a critical part of our governance system and why it needs supervision.

He will not assign you a BSIP number because of his or her will, and many of our proposals need to be voted through the BSIP process.

To be honest, because of a person's personal factors, it affects the community's vote on something.

[shulthz]

I don't understand. BSIPs have been proposed by many people in the past.
There is no rule because in the past it worked fine without one.

This is not a outlaw country, there have community in here, community is not directly involved in, does not mean it not exist, when things lost control, the community will come in.

Why do you insist on the importance of assigning a number? The number has no meaning, it only serves as an identifier. You need an identifier if you want to talk about something. For example if you want to vote on assigning identifiers you must identify the thing that should receive the identifier. See how pointless that is?

Maybe you think it's meaningless, but it is very important, it's the first step be confirmed.

Read BSIP-1.
BSIP-76 was pushed without any meaningful discussion. Opposing comments were simply ignored.
BSIP-83 has seen much discussion before being merged, most comments were addressed, and it was technically complete. There is no precedent of a BSIP ever being thrown out of the repository.

Meaningful discussion and Opposing comments only judged by people, you think what it is, so what it is, when a BSIP got enough support from committees, these mean it have enough basis of vote, it can be pushed, if not got enough support, why should it be pushed? just as the worker or core team love it? or technically complete?anything can be technically complete, but didn't mean it represent the interest of holders, just like what i said before, if it can't get the basic support from holders, why we should push it? So simple truth.
and who represent the holder of bts and communicate with them directly?

You didn't answer my question. I will still answer yours:

You should get the answer from your answer. The committee and wittness were voted in by holders, i don't want said that again and again, no matter what they do or act, they are neutral than anyone, they were supervised by the holders. The worker/core team only got the worker from the holders, got the worker not as their neutral just as they suite this worker. Not as someone think they are neutral and they will become neutral.
Neutral should act by the committees and wittnesses who were chosed by holders.

I have had my own disagreements with some of the more recent BSIPs, but I have never blocked them nor reverted them after they were merged.

Thanks for your hard work, but this is not a long-term solution, we need a clear rule to follow and resolve conflict.

The Core Team is comprised of an established group of community members who have demonstrated their ability to collaborate as a decentralized team

Now we got the rough definition about the "core team", but nobody can oversight them, self-discipline didn't have any help.

The core team has been given authority by the shareholders, by way of worker ID 1.14.163 being approved by the shareholders

No, this must be clear, authority must be clearly defined and explained. 1.14.163 only is a worker not a BSIP, didn't have the effect to ask transfer authority of github.
If every worker have this requirement, What a mess!

[pmconrad]

when things lost control, the community will come in.

Then write a BSIP and let the community decide on BSIP management.

if it can't get the basic support from holders, why we should push it?

How to judge support without a vote?

The committee and wittness were voted in by holders,

So what? The core worker was voted in by the holders as well.

In the past, neither the witness role nor the committee role were associated with BSIPs management. The witness job is/was to produce blocks and provide price feeds. The committee job is to manage chain parameters and committee-owner assets. Nothing else. If you claim otherwise, prove it.

Show me a single document about our governance model that gives the committee and/or the witnesses control over github. This is all just your opinion, and not supported by anything else.

I have given you proof that the core worker was assigned with the task of BSIP management by a direct shareholder decision. If you claim that this is committee responsibility, then the burden of proof is upon you. Stop asking rhetorical questions and deliver some facts for a change.

1.14.163 only is a worker not a BSIP, didn't have the effect to ask transfer authority of github.

It is a clear decision by the stakeholders, which you choose to ignore because you don't like it.

If every worker have this requirement, What a mess!

If every worker had this requirement it would be the shareholder's job to sort it out by voting. Fact is, there is only one worker with this requirement and it was accepted by shareholder vote.

You want to change this - fine, let the community vote again. Until then, the shareholder decision stands as it is.

[shulthz]

Then write a BSIP and let the community decide on BSIP management.

Ha, maybe, but we have a very clear rule already, we will make it more clearly as your wish.

How to judge support without a vote?

You make a sophistry again and again can't prove anything, stop it. You didn't know how to judge it? Read about what i said before again and again until you know to judge it.

So what? The core worker was voted in by the holders as well.

Finally, A fox can not hide its tail！
So what? did you really want it or need i said clearly? or you can't get it until now and need i point out to you? or you just want to make a sophistry again and again? or you or the team want to grap the power didn't want give back it to community?

It is a clear decision by the stakeholders, which you choose to ignore because you don't like it.

I like or not like it doesn't matter, i'm here talking so much to you just want let someone down gently, until now you still didn't get it, so i said clearly to you let you know what is the truth: the basis what you
talking about never exist , even i care about your feeling as you said, but it has been voted out long time ago as your wish, oh, you said, because its Budgets has satisfied, who care?! vote out is vote out, when a worker was voted out, the holders have the power to ask get back all the things what belong to them.
Now you got what i say or you can change the core team Intent again? or someone want to grap it firmly and say: The authority is ours, they want to take it from our team, it's our preclous.
You will get result at last, but the result will not be your wish, now someone can go on his sophistry and humiliate the holders again and again or make a positive suggestion.

[pmconrad]

You make a sophistry again and again can't prove anything, stop it.

I have proven that the core team has been assigned with the task by direct shareholder vote.
You are the one who fails to deliver proof for all your claims.

the team want to grap the power didn't want give back it to community?

The core team did not "grab the power", it was given to them by a shareholder decision. The only power grab that did happen was when @abitmore remove write access for the rest of the core team.

The core worker ends on Dec 29. Until then I see no reason to waive the shareholder decision and "give back" power (to whom btw?). The shareholders are free to come up with a different solution, of course, but you and your opinion are not representative of the shareholders. I have said it often enough - if you want change, let the shareholders vote on it. Until then, your claims have no legitimacy.

! vote out is vote out, when a worker was voted out, the holders have the power to ask get back all the things what belong to them.

So you think we should have stopped working and returned the funds after the worker was voted out due to being fully funded? That is just silly. Why didn't you demand this back in July when it happened?

[shulthz]

I have proven that the core team has been assigned with the task by direct shareholder vote.
You are the one who fails to deliver proof for all your claims.

What you give is meaningless, this can't prove anything, any of you can change the content of this worker in any time(oh, someone have did it!!!) and ask for any authority from the holders.
A worker can't prove andthing.
What i claim is a very clear authority rule, now you want to domineer over the community, make every sophistry to prove that the team own the power is greater than the community, as i said, a fox can not hide its tail!

The core worker ends on Dec 29. I see no reason to waive the shareholder decision. The shareholders are free to come up with a different solution, of course, but you and your opinion are not representative of the shareholders. I have said it often enough - if you want change, let the shareholders vote on it. Until then, your claims have no legitimacy.

Now what i claim have no legitimacy? that's very funny, how do you think i and my opinion are not representative of the holders? what make you think so?
A worker can claim the authority so easily? fool and humiliate the holders? if the worker make a hidden content and voted in, so they can do what they wnat to do?
Just like i provide a worker to a person, then the person ask me for the ownership of the house and tell me the worker content incloud this, and the modification powers of this worker, renew the power and end explain the power all belong to the him!
Stop your ridiculous thougt and proof.

[shulthz]

So you think we should have stopped working and returned the funds after the worker was voted out due to being fully funded? That is just silly. Why didn't you demand this back in July when it happened?

when a worker was voted out, the holders have the power to ask get back all the things what belong to them.

Read it seriously and specifically！

[pmconrad]

any of you can change the content of this worker in any time

No we can't. It's posted at the BBF site. https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-02-bitshares-core

(oh, someone have did it!!!)

Please provide proof if you make such accusations.

A worker can't prove andthing.

This is ridiculous. The worker system is how we decide things in the community.

how do you think i and my opinion are not representative of the holders?

The burden of proof is upon you. For the umpteenth time: write a BSIP and let the shareholders decide.

A worker can claim the authority so easily? fool and humiliate the holders? if the worker make a hidden content and voted in, so they can do what they wnat to do?
Just like i provide a worker to a person, then the person ask me for the ownership of the house and tell me the worker content incloud this, and the modification powers of this worker, renew the power and end explain the power all belong to the him!

Once again, stop your unfounded accusations, or provide proof.

[shulthz]

No we can't. It's posted at the BBF site. https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-02-bitshares-core

This can't prove anything, the modification powers of this worker content, renew the power and end explain the power not belong to the Community.
or you have the explain power for this worker content？

This is ridiculous. The worker system is how we decide things in the community.

Core Team Scope
The primary focus of the Core Team remains maintenance and development of the core protocol and oversight of the BitShares Improvement Proposals (BSIP) process. The Core Team will continue to liaise with the BitShares UI Team, and other community lead efforts maintained within the BitShares Organization on GitHub. The Core Team continues to guide Community Contributors toward promotion into open Core Team Roles through the Community Claims program detailed below.
Collaboration tools will continue to include software tools and server infrastructure to support development and testing efforts. The bitshares-core GitHub repository remains the primary source for our planning, discussion and deliveries. The Core Team participates with the UI Team and BitShares Committee to manage access within the BitShares Organization on GitHub.

Any authority claim in a worker must not be accepted and ineffective, this is a very clear common sense. The reason i have said very clearly, not a unfounded accusations what you said.
A authority request must be clear and specific, need a separate explanation, not like some word puzzles and pitfall clause, especially should not occur in a worker.

The Core Team participates with the UI Team and BitShares Committee to manage access within the BitShares Organization on GitHub.
The primary focus of the Core Team remains maintenance and development of the core protocol and oversight of the BitShares Improvement Proposals (BSIP) process.

These were your proof？Did these clear and specific？participates with and oversight can prove what？These words make you believe that Community give the team a higher authority than the Committee？

[pmconrad]

These words make you believe that Community give the team a higher authority than the Committee？

Like I said several posts above, show me a single document that assigns the Committee with the job of BSIP management. You obviously have no idea how our governance system works. The committee is a purely technical role. If you want to assign BSIP management to the committee, write a BSIP.

Arguing with you is pointless. You ignore proven facts that are presented to you. All you come up with are your opinions presented as facts, meaningless rhetorical questions, and unfounded allegations and accusations. I'm out.

[shulthz]

These words make you believe that Community give the team a higher authority than the Committee？

Like I said several posts above, show me a single document that assigns the Committee with the job of BSIP management. You obviously have no idea how our governance system works. The committee is a purely technical role. If you want to assign BSIP management to the committee, write a BSIP.

Arguing with you is pointless. You ignore proven facts that are presented to you. All you come up with are your opinions presented as facts, meaningless rhetorical questions, and unfounded allegations and accusations. I'm out.

I have said very clearly, this worker can't prove anything, all the explain just come from your thought, let you are deluded enough to think that the Community really give the authority to the worker team.
The man who obviously have no idea how our governance system works is you, you have not realised that until now, and still think a worker will have the power to grap the authority easily, don't act so naive anymore.
Arguing with you is pointless too, every your proof was feeble. You out is right, the holders shouldn't suffer your sophism and humiliation again and again.

This argument started by you, and ended by you, that's very fair, and you didn't make any positive suggestions until now, just want the argument one by one, it seemed you have no wish to give any positive suggestions.

So we will make this BSIP, hope you get what you wish, Cheers!

[sschiessl-bcp]

I think it would make sense to implement a similar guideline here like I suggested for BAIP

bitshares/baips#11 (comment)

[shulthz]

I think it would make sense to implement a similar guideline here like I suggested for BAIP

bitshares/baips#11 (comment)

Yes, we need push forward, can't hold here.

We need to makes clear who have the power to deliberated and assigned a BSIP number, and how to decide. I think the committees (( or grantee of committees) can vote for it if this BSIP should have a BSIP number, then vote through, give BSIP a number, BSIP status: Accepted → push it to vote by holders of BTS.