[License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting McCoy Smith (mccoy at lexpan.law):

> If you go just on the cumulative numbers, there were 1,061 votes
> cast, so (82+36)/1,061 = 11.1%, as you note.
> 
> If you go to the ballot tracker
> (https://vote.heliosvoting.org/helios/elections/d93efdc8-5c7e-11ea-9fd6-dac1
> e2b1446f/voters/list), there were 338 individual voters who cast
> votes, so 338/1,061 = 31.8%.  That's more in the ballpark of the quoted 35%.

McCoy, I appreciate the further explanation, albeit I probably don't have
enough knowledge of the voting process to entirely follow your distinction 
between voters (qty. 338) and votes (qty. 1,061):  Access to the Helios
ballot tracker is reserved to currently qualified voters, and if the
ISO process was/is already elsewhere documented, I apologise but it must
have flown past me.  (You may be implying that voters could cast
multiple votes for the two open regular Board seats, or perhaps some
flavour of ranked-choice voting was involved.)

In any event, Ms. Ehmke's blog post claimed, emphasis added, that she
and Tobie Langel 'did collectively secure 35% of the _votes_ from the
membership'.  Not 'voters'.  Thus, unless I'm missing something
important, this would mean that my 1,061 divisor would indeed be the one
to use, resulting in 11%.

It's an extrmeely minor point, and not worth spending time on, IMO.  On the
other hand, if you or some other kind person could provide a pointer to 
further details about how OSI votes for Board elections, e.g., FPtP vs.
some flavour of ranked-choice, and so on, it would warm the heart of this
voting-algorithm geek.  (Again, I apologise if this has already been
covered.)

-- 
Cheers,                 "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
Rick Moen                                     -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey 
rick at linuxmafia.com 
McQ! (4x80)