it's not ready to sign (even though there are actually pending sign
merge request, we will get back to those folks when we're ready).
-## Petition to Open Source Initiative to Publish 2025 Board of Directors Election Results
-
-We, the undersigned, petition the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to release
-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 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 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
-community.
-
-OSI elections have been a key component of its governance since 2012,
-when it shifted toward having a board primarily elected by individual
-and affiliate members. Although only advisory in strict legal terms,
-these elections are vital to OSI's community focus and standing. For all
-previous years, OSI has committed to running elections according to best
-practices and has honored the election results.
-
-The 2025 election was conducted using the OpaVote service. In this
-process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique URL leading to a formal
-ballot that runs proprietary JavaScript and appears as follows:
-
-- [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 provides a function to publish the
-results to voters over email. Instead, OSI
-downloaded the ballot data and then altered it to remove three
-candidates and all votes they received. OSI subsequently published these
-altered election results. These results do not represent a legitimate
-election between the remaining candidates. For many reasons, an
-actual election between them would likely have produced notably
-different vote counts.
-
-OSI's [stated reason for the
-intervention](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board)
-is that three candidates (whom they did not acknowledge by name) failed
-to satisfy a requirement to sign the OSI board agreement. However, **the
-requirement that all candidates sign the agreement was added at the end
-of the 2025 election — *after* all voting had concluded, but *before*
-results were announced.**
-
-In any normal election, results are published transparently—regardless
-of whether some candidates withdraw, die, or are disqualified for any
+Please propose edits to the following document. My primary concern is to see it formatted (summary / bullet lists / bold-thesis-sentences… all those things that make it
+easier to skim and to process, that remove the wall-of-text feeling).
+
+# Petition to the Open Source Initiative: Publish the Full 2025 Election Results
+
+**We, the undersigned, petition the Open Source Initiative
+(OSI) to release the complete, unaltered results of its 2025 Board of
+Directors elections**. We believe OSI's mishandling of the election,
+specifically altering the rules and results after voting concluded, has damaged
+its credibility and requires immediate transparency.
+
+**OSI relies *entirely* on community deference and respect**
+for its authority in promoting Open Source and the
+consistent use of the term "Open Source."
+
+- Since 2012, OSI has relied on elections by individual and affiliate
+ members to draw in community and build a capable board.
+- Though advisory in strict legal terms, elections have been vital to
+ OSI's community focus and standing.
+- Historically, OSI has worked toward following best practices and honored election results—until now.
+
+## What Went Wrong
+
+**In 2025, OSI altered the election results by removing three candidates and all votes cast for them.**
+The elections were conducted using the OpaVote service, which emails each
+voter a unique ballot link. Examples:
+
+- [Unmarked ballot](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-unmarked-ballot-example.png)
+- [Filled-in ballot](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-marked-ballot-example.png)
+
+OpaVote allows results to be published directly
+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.
+
+ [*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.
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+**Changing election rules mid-process and altering vote counts undermines the integrity of any election.**
+Results must be published transparently—regardless
+of whether a candidate withdraws, dies, or is disqualified for any
reason. Once a candidate has been placed on the ballot, the only way to
respect the voting electorate is to count and report the votes as
marked. A trustworthy election cannot have rules changed during the
-election process, and the voting must be tabulated and reported
-accurately.
-
-Any tampering with elections erodes community trust. Note that this
-concern is not a legal one. Even tampering with informal polls on a
-forum can severely harm an organization's reputation. **By adding
-requirements *during* an election process and altering votes, OSI has
-damaged its credibility** with the membership and wider community.
-
-The three candidates removed from the vote tally were Richard Fontana (a
-former OSI director), Bradley Kuhn, and Bentley Hensel. Kuhn and
-Fontana's campaign platform sought various changes to OSI, including
-revising a provision of the OSI board member agreement that requires
-members to "support publicly all Board decisions," due to concerns that
-it is overly broad. In the past, as with comparable elections for other organizations, joining the OSI board would
-have included the possibility to discuss the board member agreement with
-the OSI board before signing. The newly announced requirement to sign
-within a few days after voting closed eliminated that possibility. An
-[article at
-*LWN*](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) states
-that "a cynical person might conclude that the last-minute requirement
-to sign the agreement was to disqualify one or both" and covers
-additional concerning details about this election. Bentley Hensel, on
-the other hand, was simply busy and didn't respond promptly enough to
-the sudden new requirement.
-
-With this petition, we do not endorse any particular candidates or
-policy positions. We are community members who care about OSI's mission
-and its standing in the world. We wish to see OSI thrive in good
-standing.
-
-To restore its credibility and reputation, we call on OSI to immediately
-release the unaltered election totals, acknowledge the harm this
-situation has caused to the community, and credibly recommit to working
-with the community on all steps necessary to repair lost trust.
+election process.
+
+**By adding requirements *during* an election process and altering
+votes, OSI has damaged its credibility.** Any tampering with elections
+erodes community trust. Note that this concern is not a legal one. Even
+tampering with informal polls on a forum can severely harm an
+organization's reputation.
+
+**Election results with candidates removed are not valid.**
+Voter behavior is shaped by the full candidate list. Removing candidates after voting distorts the outcome:
+
+- Voters often devalue lower preferences based on strategic calculations.
+- Preference-based voting systems support different valid voting strategies.
+- A different candidate pool might have changed who ran or how people voted.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+We are community members who care about OSI's mission and its standing
+in the world. We wish to see OSI thrive in good standing.
+
+**To restore its credibility, we call on OSI to:**
+
+- Release the unaltered election totals.
+- Acknowledge the harmful impact of this situation.
+- Credibly recommit to working with the community on all steps necessary to repair lost trust.
## Petition Details
iankelling.org / git / election-results-2025 / commitdiff