Parliament Discussion: Legislation currently proposed as Senate Bill 19

[Cbddallas (OP)]

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.

[Akomine]

I think you bring up some good points. I especially think some of the timeframes are hard to get behind, like 2.5 days seems unreasonably short, especially if someone is out of town.

The following is not intended to support or oppose your specific arguments and issues described in your detailed post, but instead I have a few more general questions for all of us to ponder:

A reminder that Senate Guideline A(2)(ii) states this:
"The Senate does not pass or propose legislation regulating the internal rules of the VillageCraft Staff, appoint or remove Staff Members, or participate in Staff Votes."

1. In a general sense, do you think that it is permissible under Senate Guideline A(2)(ii) for the Senate to pass legislation compelling the Staff to report status updates on the progress on MC version updates for VC? What about requesting instead of compelling?

2. There is precedent that the Senate can pass legislation seeking new plugins for the server, and that during the consent of the staff phase, a system administrator is required to give consent, since it requires work from them. Do you think version status updates might fall under similar logic to plugin additions/modifications? They both require some work from a sysadmin.

3. Do you think asking for status updates, or compelling status updates, is "regulating the internal rules of the VillageCraft Staff"? Or is it more along the lines of "compelling" staff to install a plugin?

That last question might be re-stating previous ones. Anyways, I think you get my gist.

[Noket]

Dallas' analysis conveniently skips over 4(c):

"If a period of 30 days passes between any updates, and the sysadmins provide no meaningful update, then the rules of this legislation are suspended until such a time when an update by a sysadmin is made,
        i. In a situation where this legislation is suspended, there is no restriction on persons to seek a status update by whichever avenue they deem appropriate."

.. which was added to convey more clearly that, while the bill is strongly worded, it can be ignored, it's understood that it can be ignored, and things return to status quo if it's ignored.

The main point of her analysis is that the bill is forceful and regulates internal rules on staff - if the entire thing is optional, I'd say it's tough to argue that it regulates staff.

The bill is meant to express what I understand is a shared strong desire to know just how far away we are from the update - I don't envision people asking every 2 days for an update, and status updates every two weeks isn't an unreasonable ask. They don't take long to write - I could write an update while on the john and still have time to read the news. Since the entire thing is optional - it's written as a wishlist - we'd like an update every two weeks, if not then every 20 days, and if 30 days pass then "no worries". That was the idea behind it.

It was written with stronger language to impress how important it is for this transparency to happen, however in the interest of appeasing criticism I've re-written a large portion to the bill to strongly emphasize that the bill is a framework where each individual person can choose to opt into the framework. The more people who opt into it, the better it'll work. It also emphasizes the benefits of more people opting in, which were present in the initial drafts but have now been more strongly stated. Since the current draft is now written as something entirely optional that any individual person can choose to opt into, it would be ridiculous to say that it's placing mandes on staff. If you want to read it, it's been posted on Discord.

I try to think as an optimist, and that people will buy into the new version if they so choose - not everyone, but enough that it'll make some impact on the status quo which is presently being left in the dark.

Finally - show of hands, how many people would like to see more transparency? The bill is being pushed because of the constant feedback and jokes about the server never going to update, and this was an attempt at mitigating the criticism - however if that's not what parliament or the people want, then who am I to argue?

[gerrit70]

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.

Impressive amounts of yapping for someone with a full time job

[Noket]

I've reached a compromise with Luis about this bill - A balance needed to be found between providing transparency and not unintentionally setting false expectations/deadlines. In that interest, Luis communicated that his inbox is always open (and maybe has a few too many cobwebs) - he's an open book, and the more you ask, the fewer cobwebs there will be. If you're intimidated at directly messaging an administrator or staff to get an update, then message me! I'm a disgraced admin, and so nothing you say to me will get you in trouble - I'll do my best to support you. He filled me in on where we're at with more detail, and while I can't provide deadlines, I can give some detail. And - since I'm already in the doghouse: I'm not as shy about reaching out to staff. I also don't mind answering questions about this decision to scrap the bill.

Luis can be reached on Discord via @luisc99 or by message on the forums here