Quoting McCoy Smith (mc...@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 r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
