The contention is not that his vote would weigh more than others. The issue brought up is that FOSS is a mindset diametrically opposed to copyright. To be on a board promoting and funding FOSS projects has a responsibility to be objective. The conflict of interest involved with making copyright claims on a FOSS project because it seems to "Infringe" on one's own product leads one to think: If one 9th of the board is compromised ethically, I have an 11% chance of my donations being squandered by passing up projects "Too close" to projects NVK might have an interest in. This is not retarded or irrational. I don't care about Opensats myself as I give charity only to people I know personally. This is merely an explanation of where others are coming from. 

 It's majority voting. 
nostr:nevent1qqsqq5g0z9ynsf4jlvun7wm5dlhvlc75d8gz8qhqa84uyqmspvakuqgpz3mhxw309ucnydewxqhrqt338g6rsd3e9upzp57hgyjdm76mm3sm3uvdzlpnxkamf7x8zxp2xhhzwv22fxjwk7caqvzqqqqqqy0wz0uy
 

 I don't know why you wrote this. I know that, as I wrote, that is not the contention. Again, it is the mindset around FOSS and intellectual property when being on a board that awards donations to FOSS projects. 

Think about it this way: If someone was on the board for distribution of funds towards technological advancement but they were Amish. You might have a conflict of interest there right? But just one Amish person on the board doesn't sway the vote. They just don't have the requisite mindset for the position. Do you see my point? 

 If the Amish person has hours of recorded conversation that demonstrates a clear understanding of FOSS, I'd say send it 

 I feel like I am not being clear. Understanding is not the issue, either. I UNDERSTAND war-mongers, thieves, and globalist control fiends. I am just ideologically opposed to them. Like the Amish to technology in my example or NVK and and FOSS in real life.