Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>]

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:10:42PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> > * Barak A. Pearlmutter <bap@debian.org> [2021-04-18 20:30]:
> > > I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
> > > Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we get
> > > in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
> > > to prevent it from ever actually happening: to prevent us from ever
> > > having to make such an embarrassing press release.
> > Maybe a public statement in the name of all developers should require
> > more than a simple 1:1 majority?
> 
> 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.
> 
> However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method for
> drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
> The up or down vote is what Steve tried to accomplish by proposing the
> GR to essentially adopt the text of the open leter.  However, things
> rapidly shifted as more options were added to the ballot.  Whether a
> "special" sort of GR is needed (one that doesn't allow for adding more
> options) or an entirely different mechanism may need to be discussed.
> 
> It isn't clear how all of it would work in practice.

Nothing prevents more than one option with a 3:1 majority when there are 
several options that are widely considered acceptable on the ballot.

In the current DPL election both candidates had a 4:1 majority.

The 2019 DPL election had 4 candidates, every single candidate had
at least a 6:1 majority.

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

> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto

cu
Adrian