[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 `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature