I don't disagree that they're entitled to move forward in the way described. But it's an interesting choice (especially nowadays) to move further away from democratic choices and not toward them.
And I don't think that the bylaws were the cause, per se, of the election anomalies. An enabler, yes, but those bylaws certainly don't seem to require the disputed process choices that were made in 2025.
@bkuhn I'm wondering if you saw today's news?
@jzb Probably not? I have literally been in transit the last 24 hours and just got to my hotel room a short time ago.
In the words of Jefferson from _Hamilton_ “What'd I miss!?!?!”
@bkuhn https://opensource.org/blog/2026-osi-elections-update
"The board has made two decisions:
1. OSI will not run the 2026 spring board election cycle.
2. The board has established a Board Working Group to review and improve OSI’s board member selection process and stakeholder engagement mechanisms and to return with recommendations by September 2026."
@jzb Yeah, just saw it as you were writing that, on LWN of course: https://lwn.net/Articles/1056376/
This is a good decision, but it's all the more reason for the prior election results (using the untampered ballots) to be published to the public. THAT will be an essential process in this work.
I am admittedly amused that OSI now uses the phrase that I used through the election cycle: that the elections were performative since they were non-binding.
And yet, we're in fro a great panel!!!!
I read the statement as an admission of error (in political speak). #OSI's by-laws created a self-perpetuating Board, & it has never been any different: elections were advisory, not binding.
This was the root cause of all the problems: folks hear “election” & think “my vote COUNTS!”. But it never did.
What's missing is remedy for the past. What happened in March 2025 mattered, & Step 0 is remedy for that. Doing the rest of what they propose as Step 1-N seems fine to me.
Cc: @jzb
