preference numbers for remaining candidates, and [published the altered
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.
+**OSI offered no valid justification for altering the ballots.** Their
+explanation: *"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
+**after* a candidate was elected. OSI stated plainly that the purpose of
+the new requirement was so they could alter election results before
+their publication if any candidates did not sign.
**Why didn't they sign?**
-* Benley Hensel was unable to respond within the surprise 47 hour
+* Bentley 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/) 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
+* Richard Fontana and Bradley Kuhn had publicly raised concerns about a
+ clause in the agreement that restricted their speech potentially
+ indefinitely. They sought clarification before signing and sent
+ proposed amendments which OSI did not appear to have considered.
+
+ [*LWN* covers many more details of the OSI election](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/)
+and within its conclusion notes:
+> "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.
+OSI has the right to set expectations for OSI board members and to
+disqualify candidates who don't meet them. Likewise, candidates learn
+about the board during the election process and then an onboarding
+process and may decide the board is not a good fit at any point. But
+neither justifies tampering with election results.
## Why This Matters
**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.
+- Preference-based voting systems support different valid voting
+ strategies beyond a one dimensional ranking.
+- Voters often give lower preferences much less consideration by
+ strategically valuing their time based on estimated probably of outcomes.
+- A different candidate pool could have changed who ran and how people voted.
## Resolution
- 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.
+- Credibly commit to working with the community on all steps necessary to repair lost trust.
## Petition Details
**The petition is open. Signatures are welcome.**
-- **How to sign**: Submit your signature via a merge request on [Codeberg](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025)
-- **When signing, please**:
- - Indicate your relationship to OSI if applicable (Member, Former Director, etc.)
-- **For OSI affiliates**:
- - Affiliate Representatives should sign on behalf of their organization
- - Employees/volunteers may also sign separately in their individual capacity
+- **How to sign**: Submit your signature via a merge request on [Codeberg](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025).
+- When signing: Indicate your relationship to OSI if applicable (Member, Former Director, etc.).
+- For OSI affiliates:
+ - Affiliate Representatives should sign on behalf of their organization.
+ - Employees/volunteers may sign separately in their individual capacity.
Respectfully,
iankelling.org / git / election-results-2025 / commitdiff