to participants. Instead of using this built-in transparency feature,
OSI downloaded the ballot data, removed three candidates, altered voting
preference numbers for remaining candidates, and [published the altered
-voting results.]((https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board))
-
-**OSI justified its intervention by citing a new requirement: that candidates sign a board agreement.**
-However, this requirement was introduced *after* voting had concluded
-but *before* the results were announced. The three excluded
-candidates—Richard Fontana (a former OSI director), Bradley Kuhn, and
-Bentley Hensel—were not named in OSI’s announcement, but their removal
-was evident from the published data.
-
-Fontana and Kuhn's platform aimed for significant changes to OSI. In a
-seemingly smaller change, it sought to revise a clause in the board
-agreement requiring directors "support publicly all Board decisions,"
-which they viewed as overly broad. In previous years, there was a
-possibility for candidates to discuss such agreements with the board
-after being elected. In 2025, that opportunity was eliminated by the
-sudden imposition of a post-voting deadline. Hensel, by contrast,
-appears to have simply missed the short window to respond.
+voting results.](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board)
+
+**OSI had no valid justification for altering the ballot data.** But we
+must examine it. In OSI's own words: "Two were ineligible
+as they did not sign the current board agreement; one returned the
+signed agreement after the deadline passed." However, the requirement
+for candidates to sign the board agreement was introduced *after* voting
+had concluded but *before* the results were announced. Up until then,
+signing was only required if and when a candidate was appointed to the
+board.
+
+**Why didn't they sign?**
+
+* Benley Hensel was unable to respond within the surprise 47 hour
+ deadline.
+* Richard Fontanta and Bradley Kuhn had publicly raised concerns about a
+ clause in the agreement that restricted their speech, even after their
+ board service ended and they sought clarification before signing.
[*LWN* OSI election
-coverage](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/)
-noted that "A cynical person might conclude that the last-minute
-requirement to sign the agreement was to disqualify one or both because
-they would have won otherwise; and that the OSI leadership was unwilling
-to have even a minority number of board members who might seek to steer
-the ship in a different direction."
-
-We do not endorse any particular candidates or policy positions, but we
-acknowledge these serious concerns.
+coverage](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) went
+into much more in depth and based on many details not covered here, it noted
+that "A cynical person might conclude that the last-minute requirement
+to sign the agreement was to disqualify one or both because they would
+have won otherwise; and that the OSI leadership was unwilling to have
+even a minority number of board members who might seek to steer the ship
+in a different direction."
+
+This petition does not endorse any particular candidates or policy positions, but
+we acknowledge these serious concerns.
+
+OSI admitted the new requirement was meant to prevent Fontana and Kuhn
+from advancing further without signing the agreement as is. OSI has the
+right to set expectations for board members, and there are a wide
+variety of reasons why OSI might decide that a candidate is not a good
+fit for the board. Conversely, a candidate learns a lot about the board
+as they go, including after joining the board and there are many reasons
+they might decide that the board is not a good fit for them.
## Why This Matters
iankelling.org / git / election-results-2025 / commitdiff