Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#2What does this graph means?
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#3What does this graph means?
I found this to explain things a little better: https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_rms/results.txt
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#4What does this graph means?
Debian uses the Condorcet method for elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method . Each voter is to rank a subset of all options, and this is the resulting pairwise preference graph.
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#5Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#6If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer.
They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further.
The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters.
No comment beat "call for the removal of RMS" by only 8 votes.
For me, the takeaway here is that while Debian will issue no comment, 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal. It's clear which way the tide is moving, even if Debian says nothing.
Source data: https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_rms/results.txt
Edit: My 2/3+ estimate is a napkin math overestimate, and the number is probably closer to the 50-60% other comments have suggested below.
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#7If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…
> 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal
How did you come to that number?
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#8What does this graph means?
Debian uses the Condorcet method for elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method . Each voter is to rank a subset of all options, and this is the resulting pairwise preference graph.
If it's the pairwise preference, shouldn't it be a complete graph? (a graph with edges between any two nodes)
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#9If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…
[deleted]
Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board
#10Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26851694
Perhaps the threads can be merged?