news
An Election Under a Shadow of Doubt
This year, the Open Source Initiative's election for its board of directors was anticipated with the usual level of interest. However, what unfolded was far from ordinary, leaving a trail of questions and a significant cloud of suspicion over the entire process.
Even before the first ballot was cast, a movement for change was taking shape. Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana, respected voices within our community, announced their candidacy on a shared "OSI reform" platform. Their aim was precise: to address what they perceived as critical issues within the organization's governance and direction. One element of their platform, as detailed on https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#readme, was Item 3: Removing the "code of silence" from the Board Member Agreement. This call for the allowance for respectful dissent within the board resonated with many who believed the OSI needed a shift in its approach.
As the election progressed, however, a series of missteps and controversial decisions began to overshadow the candidates and their platforms. These problems led to a highly unsatisfying outcome, prompting significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the whole election process. Now, more than ever, it's imperative that the OSI address these concerns and uphold the very principles of openness and transparency it champions. The first step towards that is clear: the full results of the 2025 election must be made public.
Recap of the Election Issues: A Series of Questionable Missteps
The 2025 OSI Board of Directors election stumbled from the outset, raising concerns beyond simple administrative errors. What transpired has led many to question whether these were mere oversights or something more calculated.
The initial election announcement, disseminated by OSI's head of community, Nick Vidal, on January 22nd immediately sowed seeds of doubt. The number of open board seats was inaccurate, initially declaring one affiliate director and two individual director positions. This was subsequently "corrected", but only after the nomination period closed, revising the count to two affiliate director seats and one individual director seat. How this impacted candidate strategies is covered elsewhere on the internet. This abrupt change begs the question: was this a genuine error or a late-stage alteration to influence candidate strategies? The OSI's acknowledgment of the "mistake" and promises of procedural improvements do little to quell the unease.
Adding to everything was the handling of the nomination deadline. While the date, February 17th, was consistently communicated, the precise time zone, 11:59 p.m. UTC, was not. This discrepancy, present in only a fraction of the election communications, led to candidate Luke Faraone's disqualification. This raises significant concerns regarding the fairness of a process in which crucial deadline information is distributed inconsistently. The fair thing to do, when something like a time zone is unclear, would be to allow the nomination.