Remove satoshi as a founding member (should require explicit intent)

[ripper234]

I believe we have no evidence that Satoshi expressed a desire to found the Bitcoin Foundation. Founding Members should be voluntary and require explicit consent/desire.

Therefore, Satoshi should be removed as a Founding Member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

[vessenes]

The board votes on all pull requests, but I want to tip my vote here and provide space for discussion if desired.

I'm a 'no' on this request, for the simple reason that it seems arrogant to launch something like the Foundation without giving Satoshi whatever say he/she/they may wish to have in it.

I'm on record, and will go on record here saying that there is and has never been intent to somehow leverage Satoshi's name into legitimacy for the Foundation -- it's a simple courtesy to give him whatever rights the most rights-given group at the Foundation has, and there was absolutely no disagreement as to the fact and spirit of adding him at launch.

[ripper234]

Thanks for engaging @vessenes.

I can certainly appreciate this view, and part of the reason I submitted this pull request is to engage in this kind of discussion. However I would argue that Bitcoin is not Satoshi, and is by now independent of him, or should be as independent from him as possible (it's bad enough he supposedly has ~ 1,000,000 bitcoins).

if Satoshi wants to be a board member of the Bitcoin Foundation, let him apply and run against the other candidates in a proper election process. Let's do what we can not to make him a "deity" or "dictator", but rather one of us.

[vessenes]

Two thoughts back: first, the Foundation is definitely not "Bitcoin" either, although I appreciate the generous perspective.

Secondly, a board member has far more power than a founding member. So maybe I should amend my previous statement and say that he's given the right to participate in a small election (the Founder seat) and the courtesy of inclusion (if he even cares about such a thing) in the founding list.

I think it's interesting to think that putting Satoshi in as a founding member hurts decentralization. I'll think more about that, but my first reaction is that Satoshi showing up and making wishes known would be such an event that the matter of his Foundation member status would have effectively no impact.

[ripper234]

You're right, if Satoshi showed up his being a member of the Foundation would be meaningless ... this is why he shouldn't have any active power. See also #10 - founding members should be honorary, they shouldn't have a special 'power for life'.

[bg002h]

I think if we make any changes to the founding member class, it would be to fix it's board representation to one seat...or if making quorum is tough because of some board members not showing up, some provision to expand their vote to achieve quorum as long as it remains a minority.

The notion that the founding member class has "special powers" is a little overstated. The special power is more of a ceremonial tiebreaker and a little help in making quorum...if everyone shows up, their vote should rarely be needed.

On May 26, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Ron Gross notifications@github.com wrote:

You're right, if Satoshi showed up his being a member of the Foundation would be meaningless ... this is why he shouldn't have any active power. See also #10 - founding members should be honorary, they shouldn't have a special 'power for life'.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ripper234]

I expanded more on what I mean by 'special powers' in #10 .

[ripper234]

Any further comments on this?

[David-R-Allen]

Satoshi would need to run like anyone else. Bitcoin is an amazing invention, however the inventor must be respected (perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize) not worshiped.

[mdhaze]

@vessenes With due respect I am completely opposed to your viewpoint ...

I'm a 'no' on this request, for the simple reason that it seems arrogant to launch something like the Foundation without giving Satoshi whatever say he/she/they may wish to have in it. .... it's a simple courtesy to give him whatever rights the most rights-given group at the Foundation has, and there was absolutely no disagreement as to the fact and spirit of adding him at launch.

....and I do wonder whether this maybe in part to my being half submerged in Asian culture and those viewpoints. It makes zero difference if you guys all agreed on Satoshi should be included. Putting someone on a board without asking them is DISRESPECT, not RESPECT. Because you are forcing something on someone. This should be totally obvious, but apparently it is not...this gets into the Oriental viewpoint on how you treat elders and such.

[ripper234]

:+1: for my subjective view of Israeli culture being the same here as @mdhaze .

[bg002h]

@mdhaze @ripper234

Satoshi is not on the board; no founding member is automatically placed on the board; their class must elect a member to the board.

Are we misunderstanding each other?

That said, I hear ya on the respect issue!

[ripper234]

We might be.

Look at the content of this pull request ... Satoshi is listed as a founding member. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't ask for this ... and it's "not serious" to list someone without an actual request from them.

[bg002h]

Afaik, Satoshi was gone before Gavin started talking publicly about the foundation in 2011. If Satoshi had input on the process of founding the foundation, it's not something I'm aware of.

[mdhaze]

I believe this is a simple matter as far as formulating the grammar of the request to the Board and that no further discussion is necessary.

How should it be phrased?

[ripper234]

What's wrong with my original phrasing?

I believe we have no evidence that Satoshi expressed a desire to found the Bitcoin Foundation. Founding Members should be voluntary and require explicit consent/desire.

Therefore, Satoshi should be removed as a Founding Member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

[David-R-Allen]

Just do it!

I believe we have no evidence that Satoshi expressed a desire to found the Bitcoin Foundation. Founding Members should be voluntary and require explicit consent/desire.

Therefore, Satoshi should be removed as a Founding Member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

[mdhaze]

@ripper234 @bg002h @David-R-Allen There is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording of the original, I guess I was thinking more a positive and forward looking thing. Here's a first cut at it:

Resolved: That Satoshi Nakamoto be removed from the Founding Members, and that a Committee On Satoshi Nakamoto be formed to determine an alternative method of showing respect to Satoshi's genius and foresight. Said committee to make recommendation to the Board within 6 weeks or no later than ________. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in the case that a vote has already occurred removing the Founding Members Class or similar action, such that the first action is moot. Resolved: That a Committee On Satoshi Nakamoto be formed to determine an alternative method of showing respect to Satoshi's genius and foresight. Said committee to make recommendation to the Board within 6 or no later than ________.

[ABISprotocol]

Has anyone considered e-mailing Satoshi Nakamoto about this? You know, just in case the Satoshi Nakamoto cares about it and is checking mail?
The e-mail address (old, not sure if works) is listed on the Bitcoin whitepaper.

[ripper234]

@mdhaze your wording works as well :)

[ripper234]

When is the next Foundation boards meeting? Open issues and pull requests are discussed at each board meeting, correct?

[mdhaze]

@ABISprotocol RE, emailing Satoshi Nakamoto. That has got to be the most heavily monitored (by the forces of darkness) email address on the planet. I'm inclined in the direction of additional verification required over and above the pgp key.

LOL....

[ABISprotocol]

@ripper234 It's unclear when the next Board meeting is. However, as part of a notification on the Bitcoin Foundation forum, it's been requested that a Board Member or Executive Director inform us of when it would be. At the time of their next meeting, according to the process in place, they must consider the pull requests that are outstanding on this repository. This is stipulated not only in the 'Readme' file linked above, but also in the Bylaws (in particular in Article IX, Section 9.2), where it states: "ARTICLE IX - EFFECTIVE DATE, AMENDMENTS, AND DISSOLUTION

Section 9.1 Effective Date: These Bylaws shall become effective immediately upon their adoption. Unless the adopting Board of Directors provide for a later date, any amendments to these Bylaws shall become effective immediately upon their adoption,

Section 9.2 Bylaw Amendments: To the fullest extent permitted by law, the authority to make, alter, amend, or repeal these Bylaws is vested exclusively in the Board of Directors, and may be exercised upon approval of a two-thirds of directors then in office without the vote or consent of any member(s) or third parties except for Section 9.3.

Section 9.3 Dissolution: The Corporation may be dissolved upon the approval of all of the directors then in office without the vote or consent of any member(s) or third parties. Any distribution of the assets of this corporation shall be made in a manner consistent with the tax status of the Corporation at the time of such dissolution."

[pmlaw]

The Board voted unanimously among attendees (5 attendees with 2 board members absent) to keep Satoshi listed as a Founding member as a gesture of respect to bitcoin's origins. As such, I'm closing this pull request.

[ABISprotocol]

@pmlaw Thanks for the quick notification of the Board vote on this. Not sure how I feel about it either way, since Satoshi hasn't weighed in, but I'm glad to see the notification of the vote.

[pmlaw]

@ABISprotocol Indeed, Satoshi's input would be dispositive.