From: Ian Kelling Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:01:22 +0000 (-0400) Subject: remove symlink, some final edits X-Git-Url: https://iankelling.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=refs%2Fheads%2Fdrafting;p=election-results-2025 remove symlink, some final edits --- diff --git a/README.md b/README.md deleted file mode 120000 index 9104881..0000000 --- a/README.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1 +0,0 @@ -petition.md \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f0b4d78 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +# 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 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." + +- In 2012, OSI shifted toward operating as a member-driven organization. +- Every year since 2013, OSI has held elections where Individual and Affiliate members + vote on directors to represent them. +- 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 Bentley Hensel, +Bradley Kuhn, and Richard Fontana (incidentally, a former OSI director). + +Notably, Kuhn and Fontana 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 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 overly 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. +Kuhn and Fontana say that they brought up their concerns about the Agreement +during candidate orientation and came away with the understanding that they +would be able to discuss how to resolve the issue later if 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 member agreement or be disqualified.** + +Hensel missed the deadline simply by not checking his email soon enough. +Having no chance to otherwise resolve or discuss their agreement +concerns, Fontana and Kuhn returned signed board member agreements that included +their proposed changes. OSI then published the announcement which +excluded all votes for the three 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. Presenting altered voting results +*misrepresents* and disrespects the electorate. + +Regardless of particular concerns about the Board Agreement, for the +current OSI Board to remove critical candidates while hiding +the voting results presents a clear conflict of interest and invites +community speculation about motives and corruption. As +[*LWN* OSI election coverage](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) +noted, "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." + +## Call for resolution + +Many of us are community members who care about OSI's mission and wish +to see OSI thrive in good standing. This petition does 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 credibility and integrity, we call on OSI to:** + +- Publish the full, unaltered election results. +- Credibly recommit 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. + +Respectfully, + +SIGNATORIES HERE diff --git a/petition.md b/petition.md deleted file mode 100644 index d840296..0000000 --- a/petition.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,107 +0,0 @@ -# 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 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." - -- In 2012, OSI shifted toward operating as a member-driven organization. -- Every year since 2013, OSI has held elections where Individual and Affiliate members - vote on directors to represent them. -- 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 Bentley Hensel, -Bradley Kuhn, and Richard Fontana (incidentally, a former OSI director). - -Notably, Kuhn and Fontana 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 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 overly 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. -Kuhn and Fontana say that they brought up their concerns about the Agreement -during candidate orientation and came away with the understanding that they -would be able to discuss how to resolve the issue later if 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 member agreement or be disqualified.** - -Hensel missed the deadline simply by not checking his email soon enough. -Having no chance to otherwise resolve or discuss their agreement -concerns, Fontana and Kuhn returned signed board member agreements that included -their proposed changes. OSI then published the announcement which -excluded all votes for the three 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. Presenting altered voting results -*misrepresents* and disrespects the electorate. - -Regardless of particular concerns about the Board Agreement, for the -current OSI Board to remove critical candidates while hiding -the voting results presents a clear conflict of interest and invites -community speculation about motives and corruption. As -[*LWN* OSI election coverage](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) -noted, "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." - -## Call for resolution - -Many of us are community members who care about OSI's mission and wish -to see OSI thrive in good standing. This petition does 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 credibility and integrity, we call on OSI to:** - -- Publish the full, unaltered election results. -- Credibly recommit 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. - -Respectfully, - -SIGNATORIES HERE