[Was: Subject: Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
readmission to the FSF board result ]
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:54:26PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:10:42PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Something like a 3:1 majority would ensure that the measure had a very broad consensus behind it. I would like to think that it would result
in more constructive discussions.
Nothing prevents more than one option with a 3:1 majority when there are several options that are widely considered acceptable on the ballot.
To make an example of a 3:1 majority requirement for public statements:
Option 1: kittens are super cute
Option 2: kittens are cute
Option 3: kittens are not cute
If option 1 has a 3:1 majority:
- option 2 might also have a 3:1 majority,
- but option 3 would be unlikely to have a 3:1 majority
I very much hope Option 3 loses out to FD!
Anybody up to set this up? 🥺🙏
🐈
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me:
https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user:
https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page:
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAmB9aU0ACgkQCBa54Yx2 K60Nug/9FsxnUSteSCnuLiapZpBzGWPsYNI4xycLrCG2gNN94EreuwwDympNwPrB D9cwiYnpCg+mfrVCwPB7fZmQeTU27NPhJscPc1V5v9hEpF+fA8r2kGqk5+U4hkf9 cg8uip02B91rszM9CH+75dcAsUqrzj7f4C9ymhk+33Bphcyx9sKiEMWF/l3IROdP pvpeKbD07uucAVU5UJFktzgXobyZodb3g/LurVhiEluniM6uW0s4iDQLVoMqwMeM J+rjtFo9g8kjCyxp02qKjDDAiPopH+ExdQoiqC3xdfnrQUe/dPkfL5d3WhPkHpot YSmRMbTUiV1vmt20uCtUsnoScRKdVITf7L+uz2i8juAvapK1ym6amPnRPoINaZJ7 difn1ycQCH6Xs7q3CruAdt9nH0VKrtRUHOPHQkbCYOfp3JEb0IocLRnZTm8VplQq tkylIpZsKB6yB3ELjz31hlP33Q0PP4Mo2dA4FvQTgM/kmuMbQlkzFN34JNDLvnLu OGNPwgQczQqAnapi2pg5/3U7Yp9ZrAPTpeHm5a1UZ+Qrp8QC6h4