* Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> [2021-04-20 13:50]:
Not sure whether you consider this an issue, but I don't see that as a problem. There is a difference between "we can't reach an agreement and therefore decide on a no-outcome vote" (which the default option is), and "we have considered all the options and decide that a no-outcome vote is the best result" (which an explicit no-outcome ballot option represents).
I think the RMS vote was somewhat unique, because (intentional or not) the options ended up in way that was almost equivalent to asking "on a scale from -3 to 3, how strongly should Debian as organization react to the RMS reinstatement". I would consider the outcome the neutral (0) option, and FD would have been the NULL option, i.e., "we can't/won't decide". If Steve's original intent to have a binary decision for signing the open letter had prevailed, an additional "no" option would not have been nearly as useful. Cheers Timo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature