Section 1. Overview. The immutable fundamental rules herein shall be the permanent and unchangeable rules of BreederDAO which may not be modified or amended by any proposals.
Section 2. Binding Force. In staking BREED or acquiring and possessing sBREED tokens, the
member agrees to be bound and abide by the terms of the DAOstitution.
Section 3. DAOstitution Amendments. As an exception to the voting requirement under the
Governance Proposal System, any change or modification in any section or provision of the
DAOstitution shall only pass upon a majority of all outstanding tokens held by members.
Whereas, addition of an immutable rule to the DAOstitution shall only pass upon a vote of two-
thirds (2/3) of all outstanding tokens held by members. No amendment of the sections, clause,
or provisions of the immutable fundamental rules and guidelines under Article III shall be
allowed.
Section 4. Prohibited Proposals. The following proposals shall be prohibited
Proposals that are unlawful or criminal in nature or have a reasonable
tendency to be characterized as such.
Proposals to exclude or permanently ban a member or group of members without undergoing the applicable disciplinary process.
Proposals that are prejudicial to the DAO or which are designed to render the DAO ineffective or inutile.
Proposals to amend any section, clause or provision of the immutable fundamental rules enumerated under Article III hereof.
It is deemed to be fair if judged properly. But, how can you say so if there is no specific clause in the DAO constitution on what is/what are prohibited?
I think it is more helpful for the proponents to have some sort of specific guide/s and thru that “guide”, DAO court members can quote reference supporting their judgement.
You got a point there. Although in general it is indeed fair but then again providing specific points and reference would be more helpful to further understand why they came up that judgement.
Well, with respect to its Section 4.d, where it states amendments to any section, clause or provision of the fundamental rules is prohibited; may I suggest that the team could come up with an implementing rules and regulations that will deal specifically with each clause.
These fundamental rules seem reasonable, but I hope that you’ll come up with additional specific regulations particularly with the prohibited proposals.
Rules indicated seems to be fair for me. With regards to Section 4, which is prohibiting proposals. I do wish they would provide specific details on why that certain proposal was prohibited because some rules are a bit broad.
This is greatly appreciated but as much as we want to detail every case this might end up limiting the movements within the community.
Essentially Section 4 does not allow proposals that are unlawful in nature, bans members without any process, invalidates the DAO and its purpose, or amends the DAOstitution without a majority vote.
I support this. We don’t want everyone having second thoughts about sharing insightful suggestions here. Let’s make this a healthy grounds for innovative ideas!
It’s very apparent that these rules only aim to regulate the community interactions rather than “limit” member’s ideas. Rules are made to be followed anyway, so yeah, these rules seem fair and just.
Rules are established for a purpose, and it’s always best to come down on the side of caution. I certainly agree with it and I am looking forward to see the article’s enhancements and modifications on its details…
How can Section 1, consider a 100% immutability of fundamental rules. There might come a time, where circumstances permit us to consider a change from a foundational grassroot level ?
Should section 4 be allowed to be amended without a timeline? just thinking out loud, do we want it to be more specific or do we want it written in a way that it would be easier to categorize motions that would fall under prohibited proposals?
Overall, the one stated here are fair and suitable. 
just thinking out loud, do we want it to be more specific or do we want it written in a way that it would be easier to categorize motions that would fall under prohibited proposals?