From c6901f14641e8718f4261217be61004f73f6af50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ian Kelling Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] remove symlink so that history is not obscured --- petition.md | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) diff --git a/petition.md b/petition.md index 87dadcf..bf6259d 100644 --- a/petition.md +++ b/petition.md @@ -1,88 +1,108 @@ -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 ---------------- @@ -91,7 +111,7 @@ This is an open petition. The signed document is available on Codeberg [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 -- 2.30.2