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 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.
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.
If OSI wants to return to a purely self- perpetuating Board, I've already said elsewhere I wouldn't object.
If they want to have an election, though, they should be held accountable to stand by the rules they told the constituency, electorate, and candidates when the election cycle started.
Changing rules and regulations for elections in the middle of an election just isn't reasonable, fair, nor democratic.
@rachel @bkuhn The platform doesn't oppose the use of Google Docs. (I use Google Docs myself sometimes.) It says that an OSI board director should be accommodated if they object to using non-open-source software. I see this proposal as pretty specific to the OSI as a pro-open-source advocacy organization.
Precisely so. #OpenSource Initiative Directors & staff should be accommodated if they have a moral/ethical objection to using non-FOSS for their work. Similar situations:
Staff/Directors of an animal rights nonprofit should not be required to eat meat at official events if they have a moral/ethical objection.
Staff/Directors of environmental nonprofit should be accommodated if they insist on using paper with 100% post-consumer content rather than unrecycled paper.
@bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel OSI has always been about "pragmatism" (see the recent OSAID for the latest example) rather than strong core values; that's what set Open Source apart from Free Software, after all.
(Or maybe it should be said that "pragmatism" *is* one of their core values, more so than "open source")
So, I sympathize, believe/wish you were on the board to strengthen it, but I can't say I'm surprised at all. 
@larsmb @bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel
#OSI forcing its Directors to use proprietary software doesn't actually sound very pragmatic to me....
@downey @bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel It is, in the sense that the proprietary software is just "pragmatically" the better / industry standard choice.
Just like OSAID pragmatically doesn't require *checks notes* the actual sources for the models.
Similar to what the key difference between Free and Open Source is that started it all: being more pragmatic wrt industry demands.
It is at least consistent.
I'm flummoxed b/c @whit537 made an unwarranted political condemnation of my deeply held ethical beliefs…
https://discuss.opensource.org/t/bradley-kuhn-blog-post-on-signing-osi-board-agreement-take-2/936/2 
… especially after I had endorsed Chad as a good second choice in the OSI's “Member district” (2nd to my running mate, @richardfontana of course).
Chad said:
> “I … interpret Bradley’s ongoing behavior as … a distracting waste of time. Open Source could be so much more than this”
I respond to Chad's condemnation of my moral beliefs here:
https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/19/a-sign-board-agreement.html#return-footnote-ok-to-ask-open-source-org-to-let-us-use-foss