Back

@bkuhn @osi @hackygolucky @pchestek Whether or not you are elected, I think we've all learned a lot about the #OSI from watching this election.

@whvholst @bkuhn Such agreements while not universal are not unheard of to clarify expectations, duties, and ethical responsibilities of Directors as part of their onboarding process.

But weaponizing their use post-vote (and before releasing the numbers!) in an attempt to disenfranchise voters by eliminating candidates who are promoting reform ... would be quite unusual and cause for alarm.

cc @sjvn @jzb @BrideOfLinux

Well said! 99.97% of existing OSI Board Agreement is fine, @richardfontana & I ran on a platform (in part) seeking to change just 19 words of it.
& #OpenSource Initiative told us clearly we need only sign this Agreement if we won election & were appointed.
I think it's clear to everyone now they're holding the true election results hostage because they don't like my and @richardfontana's platform.
For our part, we did our best to agree what we could agree to in the 47 hours allotted to reply.

@bkuhn I've been thinking that the core problem with the board agreement is these *5* words: "Disagree during Board deliberation but". Because this causes the concept of "support" referred to in the remainder of the sentence to have a particular reading that is not otherwise obvious or consistent with this concept of collective responsibility. It is possible to disagree publicly with an organization's decision and support it publicly (as a properly decided institutional act) at the same time.

@richardfontana I agree that you may have found the root cause. Although, I also don't think we should take the existing text as sacrosanct such that we should find the “minimal edit” necessary to solve the problems we see on the surface. Hopefully, the Board is open minded enough to learn from my extensive experience related to rules like this on other Boards, and your formidable legal know-how, added to their many talents, to just draft something better.