================================
This petition is in **draft form only**. Please do not sign this yet.
-We started drafting this as a private group of small individuals, but we
-decided to move to a transparent method ourselves and it's here, but
-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).
-
-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).
+This notice will be removed when finalized.
# 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.
+Directors elections**. We believe that by removing candidates and votes
+*after* voting concluded, OSI has damaged its credibility.
+We call for transparency as a first step toward repairing
+OSI's integrity and reputation.
+
+## Background context
**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/)
+- Since 2012, when OSI began operating as a member-driven organization,
+ individual and affiliate members have voted in elections for OSI Directors.
+- Although OSI is not legally bound to accept the results,
+ the elections have been a key part of community and membership engagement,
+ and OSI has always worked to follow best practices for public elections.
+- Until 2025, OSI has published the full results of elections.
+
+## 2025 election
+
+**In 2025, OSI excluded all votes for three candidates before publishing results.**
+The announcement of the
+[altered voting results]((https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board))
+did not name the removed candidates, but they were Richard Fontana
+(a former OSI director), Bradley Kuhn, and Bentley Hensel.
+
+Notably, Fontana and Kuhn campaigned on a joint
+[OSI Reform platform](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#readme)
+which included four proposals, the most significant being a call to repeal the
+the newly-adopted Open Source AI Definition (OSAID).
+They also advocated for revising the
+[OSI Board Member Agreement](https://opensource.org/board/board-member-agreement),
+because they interpreted the clause requiring members to "support publicly all Board
+decisions" as being overlay expansive and stifling. They proposed clarifying or
+limiting the clause to achieve a better balance.
+
+Normally, as in prior years, as with other organizations, and as stated during
+candidate orientation, signing of the Board Agreement would happen only
+with the election winners as part of getting seated as new Directors.
+Fontana and Kuhn stated their intentions to discuss in good faith their concerns
+about the agreement if and when they won the election.
+
+Then, **about one hour after voting ended, OSI emailed a *new* requirement
+to the 11 non-incumbent candidates. They gave a 47-hour deadline for all to
+sign the Board Agreement or be disqualified.**
+
+Hensel missed the deadline simply by not checking his email soon enough
+(being quite busy running for US Congress as well).
+Fontana and Kuhn returned signed agreements with their proposed changes.
+OSI removed them all as "ineligible" and published only an altered
+vote tally after manually removing all votes for the three eliminated candidates.
+
+## Ramifications
+
+In general, 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 appears on the ballot, the only way to respect voters is to
+count and report the votes as cast.
+
+Regardless of the particular concerns about the Board Agreement, for the
+current OSI Board to have eliminated critical candidates while hiding
+the voting results sets up a situation where the community is liable
+to speculate about motives, conflicts of interest, and more.
+
+[*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.
-
-**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
+## Call for resolution
-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.
+As community members who care about OSI's mission and its standing
+in the world, we wish to see OSI thrive in good standing.
+We do not endorse particular candidates or policy positions.
+We believe that everyone should care about transparency regardless
+of whether we are supportive, critical, or neutral on the policy
+concerns brought up in the election.
-**To restore its credibility, we call on OSI to:**
+**To restore credibility and integrity, we call on OSI to:**
-- Release the unaltered election totals.
-- Acknowledge the harmful impact of this situation.
+- Publish the full, unaltered election results.
+- Acknowledge the harm caused by 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