Do you expect it to be enforced by a machine? Why would you need a precise definition of "majority"?
There's no team of lawyers verifying the provenance of all code/projects submitted to codeberg. THe policy is just something they can point to as a general guidelines of what kind of shit they want to support.
Everyone knows exactly what kind of projects they're talking about. The people trying to nitpick definitions are those annoying ass people at the board game night that spend half the time combing through the rule book trying to figure out why whatever they didn't like was against the rules.
Ordinarily that's a bad way to run a rule. But not this time!
That's fine for new projects. Their sandbox and they can decide who plays in it. But the people who were using codeberg for months or even years and relying on it, and had to move... deserved better treatment.
Fomr my eyes the questions about what defines "majority" were well-intention-ed queries with the motive of trying to ferret out what the criterion for was in the eyes of the people who proposed the vote. That they refused to answer, and cast aspersions on the people who asked... is both a damning judgement on their personal character but also their community management.
What we have is a community defining an in-group and an out-group. And just like middle school, "you'll just know" if you're in one or the other.,
Good grief. What a bizarre cultish echo chamber. The tools make you dirty. Don't touch the tools.
And now you're literally saying that a "no vibecoded projects" rule is a slippery slope to actual fascism. Good grief! What nonsense!