Back

@bkuhn seems a sensible change to ensure those that stand are eligible. I know other OSS boards that do same (I used to run their elections)

@rachel
I'd not necessarily object if they changed the rule before election began & required all candidates to sign as part of orientation.

*But* #OSI told us during orientation that we'd sign agreement *if elected*; that changed only after voting closed.

Please do note also that #OpenSource Initiative was aware that this very issue would be part of my & @richardfontana 's platform before the election started …
https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#item-3-remove-code-of-silence-from-board-member-agreement

…Does any of that change your analysis in this case?

@bkuhn @richardfontana no, not really. Collective Responsibility, the phrase generally used for board speaking with one voice outside of the boardroom, is a hugely adopted policy in effective boards.
Plenty of OSS projects use Google Docs for communications, the Drupal Association included.
If you have a problem with signing this, why are you standing? You won’t be able to contribute as a director and that just cost the org even more to rerun election. Seems a bit daft.

@rachel

In a democratic system, the way to correct and change problematic legislation & policy is to stand for office. So we stood for office. What makes that daft in your view?

Are you saying if one disagrees with the status quo, the best option is to not participate in your community's political process *at all*?

OSI chose to have a democratic process when they didn't need to, presumably because they wanted the advantage of democratic discourse and to reap the credibility such creates.

@bkuhn as in all democracies, there are rules around elections.
The board invites people to join the board, either directly or via an election. As the Board, they see the rules.
I don’t see an issue with this.