Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
One hour after voting closed, candidates received email from
#OpenSource Initiative Elections Team — it asks us to sign Board
Agreement (w/ DocuSign) by WED 2025-03-19 17:00 UTC. — “For your name to be considered by the
board as we compute & review the outcomes of… polls”.
*But*, #OSI said at orientation that only seated Directors, not candidates, must sign this agreement.
Can anyone explain why OSI
now asks both winning & losing candidates to sign this urgently? 
https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/17/sign-board-agreement-to-be-considered.html
@bkuhn perhaps they want to make sure you will not refuse to sign if elected. If that's the issue it speaks volumes about the transparency.
I obviously considered that possibility, which of course assumes they already know I won, but I don't know that to be the case.
We truly don't know for sure why #OpenSource Initiative is behaving so strangely. As you say, that's a transparency problem.
Interestingly, if @richardfontana & I *were* to sign Board agreement as written w/ the “code of silence” , if we found out what really happened to cause these strange things, we'd be enjoined forever from disclosing what happened.
@bkuhn @richardfontana yes that silence clause sux
@rsalz @richardfontana
FWIW, this replacement does all the things that need to be done for a 501(c)(3) Board:
Board Members are discouraged from making public statements that don't align with a prior OSI decision.
Board Member shall (a) communicate with substantial advance notice to the Board of their plan to voice public disagreement, (b) make best efforts to respectfully communicate the majority's decision, & (c) to include (if in written form) a link to any relevant official OSI statement .
I've served on many 501(c)(3) Boards, and/or been in decision-maker-level positions. I've learned that addressing disagreement in the manner I propose works sooo much better than a “code of silence” .
No one paying attention actually believes every organizational decision is perfectly unanimous, so pretending like it's so is an obvious farce.
Much better to show the public there are thoughtful leaders & use any dissent as a method to also communicate the majority view.