Just thought I'd add a few notes as I read through the constitution (because I'm a super-fun-on-the-weekends-kinda-guy) and hope they're received in the spirit of 'trying to help improve things' in which they're given. I didn't submit this as a pull request because that would need some concrete changes, I'm just putting this up for discussion.

Annual General Meetings

The party is required to announce the date of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) once per calendar year at a time of the Leadership's choosing, and hold the AGM within one month of the announcement.

An AGM is to be chaired by the secretary and follow an agenda. The agenda is open for any member to add an item. Members will be notified by email at least 1 week before the AGM. The Leadership is required to be present where possible, and the meeting will be live-streamed to members. Members may request to be invited to the AGM. Only members who are invited by the Leadership may participate. The AGM does not have to occur in one physical place; an online AGM is okay.

This doesn't provide any minimum level of notice for an AGM to members, nor the timeframes for when agenda items are finalised and can no longer be added - consider this scenario: the leadership decides to have an AGM on January 20. On January 1st they announce the agenda is open, on January 4th the agenda is declared closed and sent to members. This satisfies the constitutional requirement to notify "at least 1 week before the AGM" but does not tell members what the date is, all the know is that it will happen in 1 week or more - it could be December 15th AGM for all they know. On January 20th at 10:00am the Leadership announce the AGM will be occurring at January 20th 10:05am - this satisfies the "hold within 1 month" requirement.

Ultimately the structure makes the AGM somewhat meaningless since at any point in time it could be shut down by The Leader, and regardless of what agenda items are proposed, the only voting/discussion is done by the leadership and even those decisions are at the grace of The Leader.

Maybe something like

"The party is required to hold an AGM once per calendar year, the date, time and location must be announced to the membership by email and on the website at least 28 days prior to the meeting being held. Agenda items may be added by members up till 4PM AEST 14 days prior to the AGM commencement. Members will be notified by email of the final AGM agenda 7 days prior to the AGM commencement."

Decision Making - these seem like they're intended as "OR" conditions, perhaps this would be clearer:

1. The Leader is present, or
2. The Deputy Leader and one other member of the Leadership is present, or
3. Three members of the Leadership are present

Amendments to the constitution - the 66% quorum seems irrelevant as at any time it can be changed by the Leader.

I understand the argument behind the "benevolent dictator" setup to avoid hijacking, but ultimately if elected, a "good Flux Parliamentarian" is supposed to be voting on bills in accordance with the member's app voting, not their own wishes, so you could just launch a 51% attack through that avenue - in which case is it even proper to call it an attack when it is "voting in accordance with the memberships wishes" ... it just so happens that 51+% of the membership votes were also members of Major Party X directed to join Flux and vote a certain way - even if it was for some truly heinous violations against Australians such as an act to prevent Mr Whippy vans entering beachside carparks or display home centres.

I know there is the looming threat of a 51% attack, and I believe in the good intentions behind the constitution written, but as a set of rules it still reads as "we want democracy, and to get it, we're disconnecting the membership from any power in party leadership/governance". It gives the impression of "democracy" with a big asterisk attached.

I recall the articles making this critique in the media/wikipedia and think it makes sense to at least put in place a proper election process in the constitution even if it is set to take effect after the next federal election.

I'd also remove the names from the state party constitutions as they already reference the federal party constitution so it becomes a little redundant.

Lastly, I couldn't find anything about minutes of meetings, given the platform is about improving access to democracy and transparency of process, perhaps there should be an item requiring minutes of meetings to be published on the website for member access. Maybe that the last item prior to closing a meeting must be an acceptance of the meeting's minutes so they can be published immediately after.

Steer Co positions include

• Registed Officer
• Party Agent
• Foundation Liaison
• Membership Coordinator

The spirit of how the Leader position was originally set up was that of a steward - someone to steer Flux and take responsibility for direction, integrity, etc, until it was able to sustain itself.

Sounds like a good change.

Original suggestion: https://twitter.com/PallerJohn/status/967975467591467009

Hi Max, Nathan and Tom,

While I note that your FAQ says "The core function is complete, with multiple stress tests demonstrating that the blockchain can handle votes far larger than Flux will ever realistically have to handle.", nevertheless, it may be worthwhile considering the use of Holochain, as it is much more scalable than blockchains.

Kind regards,

James