From: wolftune Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 05:46:06 +0000 (+0000) Subject: incorporate Ian's updates X-Git-Url: https://iankelling.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=bf6eacfca0799d8888130d6749cdde863c4d2c2f;p=election-results-2025 incorporate Ian's updates hopefully release-candidate --- diff --git a/petition.md b/petition.md index 6b278b1..20d4013 100644 --- a/petition.md +++ b/petition.md @@ -2,106 +2,98 @@ 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). - -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