-Petition to Open Source Initiative and To Publish 2025 Board of Directors Election Results
+DRAFT ONLY: DO NOT SIGN THIS YET
+================================
+
+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).
+
+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 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 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 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.
-
-The 2025 election was run with the proprietary OpaVote service.
-In that process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique url leading to a formal ballot like this:
+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 part of its governance since 2012, when it
+shifted toward having a board primary elected by individual and
+affiliate members. 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.
+
+The 2025 election was run with the OpaVote service.
+In that process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique url leading to a
+formal ballot which runs some proprietary JavaScript and looks 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 a function to publish the results to the voters.
-But instead of using that option, it seems OSI downloaded the ballot data,
-and then altered the data to remove 3 candidates and all the votes they received.
-OSI then published the altered election results.
-We can infer this process because OpaVote offers no 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) failed to satisfy a requirement to sign the OSI board agreement.
-But **it was only right *after* voting ended that they added this *new* requirement for all *candidates* to sign the agreement**.
-Then, after a delay of several days, OSI announced what they nevertheless called "complete election results".
-
-Of course, in the past, as with any other comparable election for any other organization,
-signing of the board agreement took place only with the elected directors after the election.
-
-In any normal election, results are published transparently —
-regardless of whether some candidates drop out or die or are 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 is the sort of behavior that can severely harm an organization's reputation.
-By adding requirements *during* an election process and altering votes without publishing the original totals,
-OSI has damaged its credibility with the membership and wider community.
-
-Now because OSI used single-transferable-vote (STV) with its multi-round elimination tabulation process,
-removing candidates can give a different result.
-So, it is conceivable (though highly unlikely) that even if the eliminated candidates did not win,
-their presence in the tabulation could alter the outcome.
-Even still, this does not justify refusing to publish the original election results.
-OSI can simply publish the original results and also publish the re-tabulated results.
-Why has OSI so far not published the unaltered results?
-
-Reasonable suspicion asks about potential *motivations* for the election 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 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 as barring directors from publicly expressing any opinion that differs from that of the board majority).
-It is easy to imagine that the current OSI Board learned of the candidates' board-agreement concerns and decided that
-pressuring the candidates to sign the agreement early would provide a justification for removing them from the elections,
-even though voting had already finished.
-And it provides some extra 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.
-
-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, to acknowledge the harms to the community that this situation has caused,
-and to credibly recommit to working with the community on all the steps necessary to repair lost trust.
-
-
+OpaVote then provides the election manager a function to publish the
+results to the voters. But instead of using that option, it seems OSI
+downloaded the ballot data, and then altered the data to remove 3
+candidates and all the votes they received. OSI then published the
+altered election results. We can infer this process because OpaVote
+offers no option to change vote totals before tallying (and presumably
+doing so would compromise trust in the integrity of their service). The
+altered results are passed off as if they represent a legitimate
+election between the remaining candidates but they don't and for many
+reasons, an actual race would likely have notably different vote counts.
+
+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) failed to
+satisfy a requirement to sign the OSI board agreement. But **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 the past, as with any other comparable election for any other
+organization, signing of the board agreement took place only with the
+elected directors after the election.
+
+In any normal election, results are published transparently — regardless
+of whether some candidates drop out or die or are 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 is the sort of behavior that 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
+(incidentally, a former OSI director), Bradley Kuhn, and Bentley
+Hensel. Kuhn and Fontana's campaign platform sought various changes to
+OSI, including to revise a provision of the OSI board member agreement
+to "support publicly all Board decisions," due to concerns that it is
+overly broad. The existing process for 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 the voting closed excluded 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 more
+concerning details around 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, to acknowledge the harms to the
+community that this situation has caused, and to credibly recommit to
+working with the community on all the steps necessary to repair lost
+trust.
Petition detail
----------------
[here](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025), and
supporters are encouraged to submit their signature through a merge
request. If you have a relationship with OSI (e.g., a Member, Former
-Director, etc.), pease indicate your relationship to OSI in your
+Director, etc.), please indicate your relationship to OSI in your
signature.
We ask that OSI Affiliates have their Affiliate Representative sign on behalf
iankelling.org / git / election-results-2025 / commitdiff