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 <b...@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