From: wolftune Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:15:32 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Rewrote Ian's rewrite X-Git-Url: https://iankelling.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=6c1c92ad48e2aaea79a37ea7d08971e5c60fa70e;p=election-results-2025 Rewrote Ian's rewrite --- diff --git a/petition.md b/petition.md index 90b60f6..3fb4559 100644 --- a/petition.md +++ b/petition.md @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ - Petition to Open Source Initiative and To Publish 2025 Board of Directors Election Results ================================================================ @@ -6,136 +5,71 @@ We the undersigned petition the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to release the complete and accurate results of the 2025 Board of Directors Individual and Affiliate elections. -In 2012, the OSI began running annual community elections, and for many -years, those elections have determined the majority of its board -of directors. In 2025, OSI published [overall election -information](https://web.archive.org/web/20250319054143/https://opensource.org/about/board-of-directors/elections) -and eventually announced that [OSI Affiliate organizations would -nominate and elect two -candidates](https://web.archive.org/web/20250323020823/https://opensource.org/about/board-of-directors/elections/affiliate), -and [OSI Individual members would nominate and elect one -candidate](https://web.archive.org/web/20250126161015/https://opensource.org/about/board-of-directors/elections/individual). Community -elections have always been advisory to the board, but OSI has -consistently written about board members as elected by Affiliates -members or Individual members, including calling them Individual -directors and Affiliate directors. - - -In 2025, the polls for both elections closed on March 17th. On March -21st, OSI posted what it claimed to be the "Complete election -results"[4], but unfortunately, they plainly are not complete and they -misrepresent the votes that were cast. Essentially, OSI altered the -ballots to erase 3 of the candidates and shifted voters ranked -preferences to fill in the gaps. We don't know if this is a very -unfortunate mistake with some good intentions, but we have seen multiple -OSI representatives suggesting there is nothing wrong. - -OSI has consistently stated that the online elections are being run -with Scottish STV (Single Transferable Vote) rules, and included a link -to [OpaVote, detailing -STV](https://opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote#scottish-stv) -. OpaVote is a service which facilitates online elections and which OSI -used for the collection of votes. Understanding how OpaVote was used -helps understand exactly what went wrong. On OpaVote, anyone can sign up -as an "election manager", and they get access to self-service forms -which facilitate running an online election. For each of the 2 -elections, OSI logged into opavote.com as an election manager, uploaded -a list of voter's email addresses, a list of candidates, selected -Scottish STV rules, and clicked a button open the polls. - -OpaVote then emailed each of the voters a unique ballot url on -opavote.com. Here is [a screenshot of an unmarked -ballot](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-unmarked-ballot-example.png) -of the OSI 2025 Individual election, and [a filled in -one](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/src/branch/main/osi-2025-marked-ballot-example.png). The -only way to fill in the ballot is by specifying a 1st preference and -then optionally a 2nd preference, and then optionally a 3rd, etc. After -the polls close, OpaVote provides the election manager an option to -publish the voting results to the voters. OSI did not use that -option. Instead, it seems they downloaded the ballot data, altered the -ballots, and used this to publish altered election results. In OSI's -results announcement, it is stated that [that 3 candidates were not -included in the final tally because of a failure to sign an agreement -with -OSI](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board). They -did not state which candidates had been removed from which -elections. What we quickly figured out is that in the individual -elections, Richard Fontana and Bentley Hensel were erased from final -ballots and apparently replaced with lower preference votes or if no -lower preference had been specified, then no preference at all. For the -Affiliates election, the same procedure was used to erase Bradley Kuhn -from the results. - -We content what hopefully seems obvious: the correct and true election -results include the actual preferences that voters marked on their -ballots. There are several points of evidence beyond common sense to -show this. The link that OSI [uses to describe STV](https://opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote#scottish-stv) -contains a set of rules, and the rules -are clear that altering ballots is not an allowed part of the -procedure. This is nothing unique to STV, this is widely accepted -practice in elections. OpaVote states that it follows the relevant -parts of the actual Scottish legislation -https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/made/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true -. That legislation is quite clear that there is no case in which a -voter's list of preferences may be altered, and the full election -results which must be announced are: - -> give public notice of– -> -> (i)the name of the candidates elected; -> -> (ii)the number of first and subsequent preference votes for each candidate; -> -> (iii)the numbers of ballot papers transferred and their transfer values at each stage of the count; -> -> (iv)the number of votes credited to each candidate at each stage of the count; -> -> (v)the number of non transferable ballot papers at each stage of the count; and -> -> (vi)the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers. - -Furthermore, we contacted OpaVote to find out their opinion of this -election. In an email, they stated "I understand your point; you want -the full results of the election to be published in the interest of -transparency." OpaVote cannot force OSI to publish the full results, but -they can see, just as we do, that contrary to [OSI's official -statement](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board), -the "complete election results" have not been published. - -According to the Scottish STV rules, even in the event of a candidate's -death, if the full election results have already been determined, they -must be announced. And if a candidate's death is known before an -election's results are determined, the election is immediately canceled, -the ballots are never counted, and the election is rerun. The three -candidates have told us that they were disqualified after the polls had -closed. At that point, the full results had already become available to -OSI. Whatever disagreement OSI has or had with the three candidates, the -voters have no part in it. We only ask OSI to live up to a simple and -basic obligation of any election. - -Some of us have heard from OSI what sounded like the theory that if OSI -had run an election without these 3 candidates, then voters would have -voted with the same preferences as the altered ballots, so the voters -haven't lost anything. We reject that idea. First of all, we've already -heard that additional candidates would have run if one of the existing -candidates had not. Secondly, there are several common and legitimate -voting strategies which do not conform to that assumption, and the -voters do not deserve to be punished for using them. The voters trusted -OSI to publish their true votes and have every right to feel that trust -has been broken. - -We also know that if the OSI board were to override the will of the -voters by invoking the advisory nature of the elections, that would be -legitimate. But at this point, we cannot agree with OSI's claim that any -candidate has been elected by the Individual or Affiliate voters until -we know the true election results. +We call for this transparency out of concern that OSI's mishandling of its recent Board elections +has damaged the organization's credibility and reputation. +OSI's 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 OSS 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 community elections serve OSI's community focus and standing. +In general, these elections have been carefully managed according to best-practices for public elections, +and the results have been honored every year. + +In the 2025 OSI elections, polling closed on March 17th. +On March 21st, OSI posted what it claimed to be the "Complete election results", +but they omitted 3 of the candidates who were on the ballots and who received votes. + +The election was run with the proprietary OpaVote service. +In that process, OpaVote emails each voter a unique url leading to a formal ballot: + +- [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 an option to publish the voting results to the voters. +Instead of using that option. it seems OSI downloaded the ballot data, +altered the data to remove 3 candidates, and then published the altered election results. +We can infer this because OpaVote does not offer the 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) did not satisfy a requirement to sign the OSI board agreement. +But **the requirement that *candidates* sign the agreement was itself *added* in the *middle* of the 2025 +election — after voting had begun and before results were announced.** +In the past (and as in any other comparable election for any other organization), +signing of the board agreement would take place only after elections were complete and only with the elected directors. + +Even ignoring the question of candidate qualification, any normal election would have the results published transparently +even if some candidates drop out later or die or are disqualified for any other reason. +For elections to be trustworthy, the rules cannot change mid-election, and the voting must be tabulated and reported +accurately. A winning candidate who refuses to take an oath-of-office is a separate issue from the process of voting and tallying election results. + +In general, any tampering with elections (and even with informal polls, for that matter!) erodes community trust. +By adding requirements *during* the election process and altering votes without publishing the original totals, +OSI has damaged its credibility with the membership and wider community. + +Further distrust comes from suspicions about the motivation for the 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 a specific "reform" campaign in opposition to some decisions made by the current OSI Board. +They also expressed publicly a particular disagreement with one of the clauses in the OSI board agreement +(which they interpret an agreement never to publicly express dissent with any board decisions). +It is easy to imagine that the current OSI Board learned of these board-agreement concerns and decided that +pressuring the candidates to sign the agreement early +(and via proprietary DocuSign software that these candidates are known to object to) +would help them justify disqualifying them from the elections, even though voting had already finished. +It also provides some plausible deniability for OSI to have also removed Bentley for having missed +the very-short deadline they set for this added last-minute requirement. An [article at *LWN*](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) -covers many other details about related contention around this election. +covers many other details about related contentions around this election. + +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. -Many of us believe there are OSI board members and perhaps election -candidates who will hear our petition and realize that somehow, these -two elections have gotten off-track and steer OSI to do the right thing. Petition detail