[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