Show Posts
1
Parliament | Suggestions / Parliament Discussion: Legislation currently proposed as Senate Bill 19
« on: 18 December 2023, 02:20:11 PM »
In the interest of starting discussion by members of Parliament who might be called upon to vote on the proposed bill, I offer the following comments on the proposed legislation currently being voted on as Senate Bill 191.
It is my opinion that the entire proposed bill violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii), which provides in relevant part as follows: “The Senate does not pass or propose legislation regulating the internal rules of the VillageCraft Staff”. Further, an examination of the bill makes it clear that the bill does not merely seek the “transparency” it claims, but actually seeks to impose a forced set of required tasks – and timeframes for their completion – upon the system administrator/s of VillageCraft, all of whom are volunteers and unpaid people with real jobs.
The following excerpts from the current draft of the proposed legislation – on the 10th revision as of December 17 – illustrate the ways in which the bill is problematic, violative of Senate mandate A(2)(ii), and should not be enacted by Parliament:
The preamble to the bill states that the purpose – in part – is “[for] the purpose of determining any plugins that are hindering the update effort” and “to allow the Senate and Parliament to debate whether any such plugins should be disabled”. It is the role of the system administrator to determine what plugins are necessary for the operation of the server and which can or should be disabled. Without the technical knowledge required to understand and assess the complex nature of the code that allows us to enjoy this 12-year-old server, this bill proposes to supplant the VC system administrator’s role in this area and violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii).
The preamble goes on to provide that the bill’s purpose – in further part – is “[for] the purpose of reducing stress and pressure on sysadmins participating in the update effort”. This bill purports to impose rules and requirements on the system administrator/s, which logically would have the opposite effect of reducing stress and pressure, but is a further violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) in that it seeks to add mandatory tasks to the system administrator’s job.
The preamble’s final stated purpose is to create “a future status update framework for any upcoming major Minecraft version releases.” Despite the original stated purpose found in the first clause of this proposed legislation being “increased transparency in the server upgrade process from 1.16.4 to the newest version or whichever version is currently planned as of 10 DEC 2023”(emphasis added), this fourth clause makes it clear that the drafter’s intent is to expand this legislation indefinitely into the future and apply these requirements to “any upcoming major Minecraft version releases”. Thus, this bill reaches permanently into the future, adding indefinite rules, requirements, and tasks to the system administrator’s role, completely disregarding (and violating) Senate Rule A(2)(ii)2.
Technical problems with the proposed legislation become clear in Definitions section.
Section 1(a) proposes to define a “reasonable” time for the system administrator to take an action as 603 hours. Clearly this is a further violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) – not only does the legislation purport to add mandatory tasks, it sets an arbitrary time frame for their completion. Sixty hours is 2 ½ days. VC inactivity rules are 2 months. Is it reasonable to require the system administrator to respond to any and all requests in 2 ½ days? Can they not go out of town for even a weekend?
Section 1(a) further attempts to define as “reasonable” any action that is not “exceptionally burdensome, including but not limited to actions that would take less than 2 hours to complete.” Not only will the system administrator be mandated to respond in an arbitrary 60-hour time period, but will certain actions that are arbitrarily determined to take less than 2 hours to complete – and who determines that? - be required to be addressed sooner than 2 ½ days?
Section 1(b) defines “newest version” of Minecraft as the version that “is the goal for ensuring the server is up to date”. As we all know, Minecraft has been ever more rapidly producing updates to the game, so the “newest version” is a moving target. By requiring the system administrator to comply with the listed tasks on an ongoing and future basis, this bill would task the system administrator to continually work to “ensure the server is up to date”, never taking more than 2 ½ days off, regardless of any concerns with the stability of the “current version” or the impact on the integrity of the server. This infringes on the decision-making role and responsibility of the system administrator/admins and further violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii).
As already partially illustrated above, despite the statement set forth in 2(a) that “[n]o part of this legislation should be construed to imply a change in internal rules of VillageCraft staff” it is clear that the entire structure of the bill is designed to impose required tasks on VillageCraft staff member/s, namely the system administrator/s. The law of identity applies here, regardless of this statement.
Specific tasks that the proposed legislation purports to impose on the VillageCraft system administrator/s are as follows:
3(a)(ii) - The main thread will be updated with updates and milestones from the sysadmin at the top of the post
3(c) - The sysadmin will produce an initial status update within three days of the passage of this legislation, or if this legislation is put back into force
3(c)(i) – the initial status report is to include but not be limited to:
A. A count of how many plugins are ready to update,
B. A count of how many plugins are not ready to update,
C. Major roadblocks preventing updating, detailing which specific plugin is causing significant problems, and
D. general plans for addressing the roadblocks.
3(c)(ii) – if the system administrator “needs” a “short extension” “for personal reasons” they are required to communicate that on the forum and then produce the status update “within the next few days”
4(a) – requires the system administrator to follow the “initial status report” with an updated report every 15 days at minimum
4(a)(ii) – if the system administrator fails to update the status report - at any time – in longer than 20 days, and a request for an update is made by any player, the system administrator is required to respond in a “reasonable” amount of time – presumably this is the 2-hour timeframe referenced in 1(a)? or does the 60 hour/2 ½ day timeframe apply here?
The final section of the proposed legislation is section 4(d), which provides for an exception to the above time requirements, an exception linked to that exception, followed by an automatic restart of the 15-day update requirement upon request of a status update by any person at any future point in time.
I submit that the entire piece of legislation represents a violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) and should not be enacted. Barring exclusion of the bill entirely, I would urge the VC Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation for the reasons set forth above.
--Dallas
1The original version of this bill is currently being voted against by the Senate, due to their inability to agree to revisions prior to the bill’s being posted for a vote, but Senator Noket has been revising it for resubmission once the first version is voted down. See the thread for the proposed legislation in the discord channel #Senate, under the thread entitled “Draft – TIME act”.
2See also Section 3(b) which provides: “Once the update to 1.20 is completed, this bill may be put back into force for versions beyond 1.20 either at the sysadmin’s discretion or by majority vote of the senate.”
3This time frame has changed in the various iterations of the bill. It has varied from 48 hours in revised versions 1-5, and 60 hours thereafter in revised versions 6-10.
It is my opinion that the entire proposed bill violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii), which provides in relevant part as follows: “The Senate does not pass or propose legislation regulating the internal rules of the VillageCraft Staff”. Further, an examination of the bill makes it clear that the bill does not merely seek the “transparency” it claims, but actually seeks to impose a forced set of required tasks – and timeframes for their completion – upon the system administrator/s of VillageCraft, all of whom are volunteers and unpaid people with real jobs.
The following excerpts from the current draft of the proposed legislation – on the 10th revision as of December 17 – illustrate the ways in which the bill is problematic, violative of Senate mandate A(2)(ii), and should not be enacted by Parliament:
The preamble to the bill states that the purpose – in part – is “[for] the purpose of determining any plugins that are hindering the update effort” and “to allow the Senate and Parliament to debate whether any such plugins should be disabled”. It is the role of the system administrator to determine what plugins are necessary for the operation of the server and which can or should be disabled. Without the technical knowledge required to understand and assess the complex nature of the code that allows us to enjoy this 12-year-old server, this bill proposes to supplant the VC system administrator’s role in this area and violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii).
The preamble goes on to provide that the bill’s purpose – in further part – is “[for] the purpose of reducing stress and pressure on sysadmins participating in the update effort”. This bill purports to impose rules and requirements on the system administrator/s, which logically would have the opposite effect of reducing stress and pressure, but is a further violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) in that it seeks to add mandatory tasks to the system administrator’s job.
The preamble’s final stated purpose is to create “a future status update framework for any upcoming major Minecraft version releases.” Despite the original stated purpose found in the first clause of this proposed legislation being “increased transparency in the server upgrade process from 1.16.4 to the newest version or whichever version is currently planned as of 10 DEC 2023”(emphasis added), this fourth clause makes it clear that the drafter’s intent is to expand this legislation indefinitely into the future and apply these requirements to “any upcoming major Minecraft version releases”. Thus, this bill reaches permanently into the future, adding indefinite rules, requirements, and tasks to the system administrator’s role, completely disregarding (and violating) Senate Rule A(2)(ii)2.
Technical problems with the proposed legislation become clear in Definitions section.
Section 1(a) proposes to define a “reasonable” time for the system administrator to take an action as 603 hours. Clearly this is a further violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) – not only does the legislation purport to add mandatory tasks, it sets an arbitrary time frame for their completion. Sixty hours is 2 ½ days. VC inactivity rules are 2 months. Is it reasonable to require the system administrator to respond to any and all requests in 2 ½ days? Can they not go out of town for even a weekend?
Section 1(a) further attempts to define as “reasonable” any action that is not “exceptionally burdensome, including but not limited to actions that would take less than 2 hours to complete.” Not only will the system administrator be mandated to respond in an arbitrary 60-hour time period, but will certain actions that are arbitrarily determined to take less than 2 hours to complete – and who determines that? - be required to be addressed sooner than 2 ½ days?
Section 1(b) defines “newest version” of Minecraft as the version that “is the goal for ensuring the server is up to date”. As we all know, Minecraft has been ever more rapidly producing updates to the game, so the “newest version” is a moving target. By requiring the system administrator to comply with the listed tasks on an ongoing and future basis, this bill would task the system administrator to continually work to “ensure the server is up to date”, never taking more than 2 ½ days off, regardless of any concerns with the stability of the “current version” or the impact on the integrity of the server. This infringes on the decision-making role and responsibility of the system administrator/admins and further violates Senate Rule A(2)(ii).
As already partially illustrated above, despite the statement set forth in 2(a) that “[n]o part of this legislation should be construed to imply a change in internal rules of VillageCraft staff” it is clear that the entire structure of the bill is designed to impose required tasks on VillageCraft staff member/s, namely the system administrator/s. The law of identity applies here, regardless of this statement.
Specific tasks that the proposed legislation purports to impose on the VillageCraft system administrator/s are as follows:
3(a)(ii) - The main thread will be updated with updates and milestones from the sysadmin at the top of the post
3(c) - The sysadmin will produce an initial status update within three days of the passage of this legislation, or if this legislation is put back into force
3(c)(i) – the initial status report is to include but not be limited to:
A. A count of how many plugins are ready to update,
B. A count of how many plugins are not ready to update,
C. Major roadblocks preventing updating, detailing which specific plugin is causing significant problems, and
D. general plans for addressing the roadblocks.
3(c)(ii) – if the system administrator “needs” a “short extension” “for personal reasons” they are required to communicate that on the forum and then produce the status update “within the next few days”
4(a) – requires the system administrator to follow the “initial status report” with an updated report every 15 days at minimum
4(a)(ii) – if the system administrator fails to update the status report - at any time – in longer than 20 days, and a request for an update is made by any player, the system administrator is required to respond in a “reasonable” amount of time – presumably this is the 2-hour timeframe referenced in 1(a)? or does the 60 hour/2 ½ day timeframe apply here?
The final section of the proposed legislation is section 4(d), which provides for an exception to the above time requirements, an exception linked to that exception, followed by an automatic restart of the 15-day update requirement upon request of a status update by any person at any future point in time.
I submit that the entire piece of legislation represents a violation of Senate Rule A(2)(ii) and should not be enacted. Barring exclusion of the bill entirely, I would urge the VC Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation for the reasons set forth above.
--Dallas
1The original version of this bill is currently being voted against by the Senate, due to their inability to agree to revisions prior to the bill’s being posted for a vote, but Senator Noket has been revising it for resubmission once the first version is voted down. See the thread for the proposed legislation in the discord channel #Senate, under the thread entitled “Draft – TIME act”.
2See also Section 3(b) which provides: “Once the update to 1.20 is completed, this bill may be put back into force for versions beyond 1.20 either at the sysadmin’s discretion or by majority vote of the senate.”
3This time frame has changed in the various iterations of the bill. It has varied from 48 hours in revised versions 1-5, and 60 hours thereafter in revised versions 6-10.
. However, we will all be better soon, Christmas can be postponed, and it's all going to be fine. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has made my and DDr's days a little easier and a lot more fun - I love you all, and wouldn't change anything about any of you. 
