Definition of Member could be needed

[villesundell]

It seems that "Member" is not (well) defined: it does not mention can member be a juridical person (i.e company, association, foundation, etc.), natural personhood is of course implied.

I think for many people it would be useful that your company could be a member, instead of you as a natural person (for example block producers and other companies). If Member can be a juridical person, then it should be decided, can an account itself be a Member (i.e company multisig), instead of individual keys (this is not defined neither btw, but it's implied).

Personally I think member should be defined, because a member can have rights, liabilities and obligations to other Members (It's not something symbolic and/or abstract).

[leo-eosnodeone]

Same idea. Mostly, an ACT like BROADCASTING ACT starts with article 1(purpose) and article 2(definitions). In the current constitution there are still many concepts including "Member" and "TAPOS" which are not well-defined.

[honestdude]

This is such an important issue. I see folks proposing detailed edits of the constitution without addressing any of the actual definitions within. This could be a make it or break it issue for EOS

[eossweden]

Also what about Block Producers? Does members include Block Producers? What about violence from top 21 Block Producers? How that will be managed?