From 3a90819f4a8bac3150317e73385fbc6496552b9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ian Kelling Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 04:50:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] change tact somewhat --- petition.md | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) diff --git a/petition.md b/petition.md index e680c9d..96fd9c1 100644 --- a/petition.md +++ b/petition.md @@ -7,12 +7,11 @@ 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 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, +Directors elections**. We believe OSI's handling of the election, specifically altering the rules and results after voting concluded, has undermined its credibility and demands immediate transparency. @@ -20,66 +19,108 @@ its credibility and demands immediate transparency. for its authority in promoting Open Source and the consistent use of the term "Open Source." -- Since 2012, OSI has relied on elections among individual and affiliate - members to draw in community and build a capable board. -- Though advisory in strict legal terms, these elections have been - vital to OSI’s community focus and standing. -- Historically, OSI elections have been percieved as trustworthy and OSI has honored election results—until now. +- Since 2012, OSI has relied on annual elections among individual and affiliate + members to draw in community and fill the majority of its 10-12 member + board. +- Historically, OSI elections have been perceived as trustworthy and + although technically advisory, OSI has honored the election + results—until now. ## What Went Wrong -**In 2025, OSI altered the election results by removing three candidates and all votes cast for them.** +**For the 2025 election, OSI withheld the vote counts for three candidates.** + +To understand how this happened, we must look at the context. + +Two candidates—**Richard Fontana** (a former OSI director) and **Bradley Kuhn**— +ran on a joint [OSI +Reform +platform](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#readme). It +included four proposals, the the most significant being a call to repeal the +the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID). + +They also advocated for revising the [OSI board member +agreement](https://opensource.org/board/board-member-agreement), +particularly the clause requiring members to "support publicly all Board +decisions." They proposed clarifying or limiting this clause to avoid +an overly expansive interpretation. This could even potentially be +addressed through internal documentation. + +During candidate orientation, OSI stated that the board agreement would +only be signed upon joining the board—a reasonable approach, as the +agreement is explicitly for board members. **Fontana and Kuhn hoped to reach that point and then engage the board in good faith discussions.** + +### **The Election Process** + 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 the preference numbers for the -remaining candidates, and [published the altered -results](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board). - -**OSI provided no valid justification for altering the ballots.** -Their explanation: *"Two were ineligible as they did not sign the -current board agreement; one returned the signed agreement after the -deadline passed."* However, the requirement to sign the board agreement -was introduced **after voting had concluded**, but **before the results -were announced**. Until then, signing was only required **after** a -candidate was elected. An OSI representative stated that a purpose of the new -requirement was to allow them to alter the election results before -publication if any candidates failed to sign. - -**Why didn't they sign?** - -- Bentley Hensel was unable to respond within the surprise 47-hour - deadline. -- Richard Fontana and Bradley Kuhn's [election - platform](https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform) was - critical of a clause in the board member agreement and stated "We - insist that this provision be reformulated with less sweeping and more - conventional language [...]" They had hoped to communicate with the - OSI board about this issue if they won an election. Confronted with a - the new deadline, they proposed amendments, but got no response. - - [*LWN*'s OSI election coverage](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) -has many additional important details which build up to this note: +The polls closed on **March 17th 10 PM US/Pacific**. OpaVote immediately +calculated the results for OSI: + +- **2 winners** from the affiliate member election (5 candidates) +- **1 winner** from the individual member election (7 candidates) + +OpaVote includes a feature to email results to all voters—but OSI did **not** use it. + +Instead of publishing the results, **OSI took a troubling turn**. + +### **The Ultimatum** + +About one hour after the polls closed, +OSI emailed the 11 non-incumbent candidates. The essential message was: + +> *Sign the board member agreement within 47 hours—even though it doesn’t yet apply—or OSI will not disclose your vote count, and you will no longer be considered a candidate.* + +**This was an abuse of OSI’s exclusive access to the vote data.** OSI +was entrusted with honestly reporting the votes and in the short period +before publication, enthusiastically +avoiding any appearance of exploiting the information +asymmetry. Instead, they blatantly exploited it. By threatened +to withhold it, they extorted public support for signing their +board member agreement, and have now committed to permanently +disenfranchising the voters for the candidates who didn't play ball. + +Even candidates who OSI could easily see had lost were pressured under threat to sign a document that +OSI could see would never apply to them. + +### **A Case in Point: Bentley Hensel** + +Candidate **Bentley Hensel** simply did not check his email within the +47-hour window. He did nothing wrong, but OSI followed through on its +threat: they removed his name from the ballots and never published his +vote count or his name. His name is **Bentley Hensel**. + +**Bentley Hensel** was busy running for US Congress and hoping to fight against unethical shakedowns like this one. + +OSI tried to disparage anyone refusing to sign. + +We note that a candidate might have intended to sign—**until it was demanded under +threat of disenfranchising voters**. Fontana and Kuhn returned a **signed agreement with proposed changes** to the clause they objected to. OSI ignored it and proceeded to exclude them. + +--- + +### **The Altered Results** + +On **March 21st**, OSI [published the altered results](https://opensource.org/blog/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board), stating: + +> **"Three candidates have been excluded from the final tally: Two were ineligible as they did not sign the current board agreement; one returned the signed agreement after the deadline passed."** + +**This statement is misleading.** + + [*LWN* cover additional relevant details and noted in its conclusion](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1014603/ac0cfc0a74755501/) > "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." -This petition does **not** endorse any particular candidates or policy positions, but -we acknowledge these serious concerns. - -While OSI has the right to set expectations for board members and -disqualify candidates who do not meet them, candidates also learn about -the board during the election and onboarding process and may choose to -withdraw. **None of this justifies tampering with election results.** +**Note:** This petition does **not** endorse any particular candidates or policy positions. -## Why This Matters +## The Core Issue **Changing election rules mid-process and altering vote counts undermines the integrity of any election.** Results must be published transparently—regardless of whether a @@ -94,27 +135,20 @@ 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 depends on the full candidate list. Removing candidates -after voting distorts the outcome: - -- Preference-based voting systems support diverse voting strategies beyond - simple ranking. -- Voters often give lower preferences less thought, allocating their - time based on estimating a sharply decreasing probability that each - lower preference will come into play. -- A different candidate pool could have changed who ran and how people - voted. +Some OSI representatives suggested that people misunderstood the **Scottish Single Transferable Vote (STV)** system. +We have reviewed this thoroughly. **The issue is not the voting +system—it is running a fair election with fully published results.** ## Resolution -We are community members who care about OSI's mission and want to see OSI governed with integrity. +We are community members who care deeply about OSI’s mission. +We want to see OSI governed with integrity and transparency. **To restore its credibility, we call on OSI to:** -- Release the unaltered election results. -- Acknowledge the harmful impact of this situation. -- Make a credible commitment to work with the community on all steps necessary to repair lost trust. +- **Publish the full, unaltered 2025 election results.** +- **Acknowledge the harm caused by this situation.** +- **Commit to working with the community on all steps necessary to repair lost trust.** ## Petition Details -- 2.30.2