================================================================
We the undersigned petition the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to release
-the complete and accurate results of the 2025 Board of Directors
+the complete and accurate results of its 2025 Board of Directors
Individual and Affiliate elections.
-We call for this transparency out of concern that OSI's mishandling of its recent Board elections
+We call for this transparency out of concern that OSI's mishandling of its recent elections
has damaged the organization's credibility and reputation.
OSI relies *entirely* on community deference and respect in order to retain its role
as an authority that promotes Open Source values and the consistent use of the term "Open Source".
-So, it is of utmost importance that OSI repair its integrity with its members and the wider OSS community.
+So, it is of utmost importance that OSI repair its integrity with its members and the wider community.
OSI elections have been a key part of its governance since 2012,
when it shifted toward running as a membership-based organization.
-Although only advisory in strict legal terms,
-these community elections serve OSI's community focus and standing.
-In general, these elections have been carefully managed according to best-practices for public elections,
-and the results have been honored every year.
+Although only advisory in strict legal terms, these elections serve OSI's community focus and standing.
+For all the past years, OSI has committed to running elections according to best-practices,
+and they have honored the election results.
In the 2025 OSI elections, polling closed on March 17th.
-On March 21st, OSI posted what it claimed to be the "Complete election results",
+On March 21st, OSI posted what it claimed to be the "complete election results",
but they omitted 3 of the candidates who were on the ballots and who received votes.
The election was run with the proprietary OpaVote service.
-In that process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique url leading to a formal ballots like this:
+In that process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique url leading to a formal ballot like this:
- [an unmarked ballot](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-unmarked-ballot-example.png)
- [a filled in ballot](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-marked-ballot-example.png)
OpaVote then provides the election manager an option to publish the voting results to the voters.
-Instead of using that option. it seems OSI downloaded the ballot data,
+Instead of using that option, it seems OSI downloaded the ballot data,
altered the data to remove 3 candidates, and then published the altered election results.
We can infer this because OpaVote does not offer the option to change vote totals before tallying
(and presumably doing so would compromise trust in the integrity of their service).
OSI's [stated reason for the intervention](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board)
is that 3 candidates (who they did not acknowledge by name) did not satisfy a requirement to sign the OSI board agreement.
-But **the requirement that *candidates* sign the agreement was itself *added* in the *middle* of the 2025
+But **the requirement that all *candidates* sign the agreement was itself *added* in the *middle* of the 2025
election — after voting had begun and before results were announced.**
In the past (and as in any other comparable election for any other organization),
signing of the board agreement would take place only after elections were complete and only with the elected directors.
Even ignoring the question of candidate qualification, any normal election would have the results published transparently
even if some candidates drop out later or die or are disqualified for any other reason.
-For elections to be trustworthy, the rules cannot change mid-election, and the voting must be tabulated and reported accurately.
-A winning candidate who refuses to take an oath-of-office is a separate issue from the process of voting and tallying election results.
+For any election to be trustworthy, the rules cannot change mid-election, and the voting must be tabulated and reported accurately.
+A winning candidate who refuses to take an oath-of-office is an independent issue from the process of voting and tallying election results.
In general, any tampering with elections (and even with informal polls, for that matter!) erodes community trust.
By adding requirements *during* the election process and altering votes without publishing the original totals,
Further distrust comes from suspicions about the *motivations* for the tampering.
The three candidates removed from the vote tally were Richard Fontana (incidentally, a former OSI director),
Bradley Kuhn, and Bentley Hensel.
-Richard and Bradley ran a specific "reform" campaign in opposition to some decisions made by the current OSI Board.
-They also expressed publicly a particular disagreement with one of the clauses in the OSI board agreement
-(which they interpret an agreement never to publicly express dissent with any board decisions).
-It is easy to imagine that the current OSI Board learned of these board-agreement concerns and decided that
+Richard and Bradley ran an explicit "reform" campaign in opposition to some decisions made by the current OSI Board.
+They also expressed public discomfort with one of the clauses in the OSI board agreement
+(a clause they interpret asban agreement never to publicly express any dissent with any board decisions).
+It is easy to imagine that the current OSI Board learned of their board-agreement concerns and decided that
pressuring the candidates to sign the agreement early
(and via proprietary DocuSign software that these candidates are known to object to)
-would help them justify removing them from the elections, even though voting had already finished.
-It also provides some plausible deniability for OSI to have also removed Bentley for having missed
-the very-short deadline they set for this added last-minute requirement.
+would provide a justification for removing them from the elections, even though voting had already finished.
+And it provides some plausible deniability for OSI to have incidentally removed Bentley over his missing of
+the very-short deadline they set for the newly-added last-minute requirement.
An [article at *LWN*](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/)
covers many other details about related contentions around this election.
iankelling.org / git / election-results-2025 / commitdiff