Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
@jwildeboer what do you mean it didn't go well? @mccoysmith @suehle @carlopiana are a impressive talents I'm sure they'll be great directors who will help the organization continue to grow
It didn't go well, the entire process was confusing and poorly communicated, there were requirements placed on candidates after they had been told there would not be (and after the votes had been cast).
Yes, the people who were elected are good people and will be welcome on the board, but that's not the only measure of the process 'going well'.
Two of the most outspoken candidates don't even appear on the election results page, and based on their public comments about signing the board agreement it doesn't appear that those people would have been in the group of three who were excluded.
@kevin Two people decided not to agree to the board code of conduct, they excluded themselves, a third missed the deadline by hours. You be the judge of their behavior.
And yes, there were bumps. That's why `The board has directed the Board Development committee to run a retrospective by April 19, 2025 and bring to the board any recommendations for the future.`
I wish OSI's @ed would stop misstating the facts:
@richardfontana & I published signed docs showing we agreed to #OpenSource Initiative's Codes of Conduct…
https://ebb.org/docs/Kuhn-signed-board-agreement-OSI.pdf
…Maffulli purposely conflates entire Board Agreement with Codes of Conduct — so his upthread statement is false.
@richardfontana & I ran on a platform (in part) to reform just 19 words in the canonical Board Agreement…
https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#item-3-remove-code-of-silence-from-board-member-agreement
We agreed to & abided by all 3 of #OSI''s Codes of Conduct.
Accusing someone of rejecting a Code of Conduct can be career-ending for the accused. Such accusations must be made w/ great care & certainty.
See upthread for an accusation of this nature by #OpenSource Initiative's @ed (Executive Director), Stefano Maffulli — made against me & @richardfontana earlier today. This accusation is false, @richardfontana & I clarified that upthread too.
I request a public apology from Maffulli of @osi .
That wording struck me as well. It appalled me reading that accusation. Especially when it's posted from an organisational account. It brings the OSIs reputation into further disrepute.
It felt like a deliberate attempt to besmirch candidates.
Not something you want from an organisation that is the custodian of the Open Source Definition, who's reason d'être is to say what is an open source license and isn't.
@onepict @ed Chad Whitacre's "had to deal with such adversarial trolls [referring directly to @bkuhn and @richardfontana) in this election" comment adds to it ... https://discuss.opensource.org/t/announcing-the-new-directors-of-osi-board/940/3
@amszmidt I've seen that kinda thing before with the public benefit campaign against Nominet a few years ago. Their MD liked to characterise the Members pushing for it as "troublemakers" and Trolls.
It's not a good look by the OSI or a board candidate.