You raise a fair technical point, PhoenixPinion. A 2-2 vote is a failed vote under the current rules. The 75% threshold is deliberate, and I agree we should not lower it. Changing the membership structure carries real risks.
But here is where I see it differently. The question on the table is not whether the threshold is correct. The question is what happens when a failed vote leaves the Foundation unable to function. You call the supervisor irrelevant. I call it the only tool we have that does not require rewriting the rules or reshuffling the Directors.
Think about the practical reality. The Foundation has four Directors. Two support A272. Two oppose it. That split will not break on its own. Every future proposal touching governance or composition will hit the same wall. You said it yourself: reducing members to three is not an option. Adding members takes time and consensus. Lowering the threshold is a bad idea. So what is left?
The Emergency Supervisor does not change the 75% rule. It does not shrink the board. It does not hand anyone the treasury. It creates a temporary, independent process to resolve this dead end. Four weeks. One matter. A supervisor chosen by the community, not by either faction. That is the narrowest possible intervention.
Passing this proposal is the only way forward that respects the Bylaws as they stand. Reject it, and you are left with a failed vote and no mechanism to move past it. The deadlock stays. The suspicion grows. Routine decisions become proxy fights. You said the real discussion is about the threshold. Fine. But you cannot have that discussion while the Foundation is stuck. The supervisor clears the path so that discussion can happen.
Support the proposal. Not because the threshold is wrong. Because a failed vote with no exit is worse than a temporary referee with a clear mandate.