Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/03/osi-board-elections-problems.html

I recently
announced that I was nominated for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board
of Directors as an “Affiliate” candidate. Many
irregularities have already occurred in this election cycle and I must
urgently draw everyone’s attention to them. And, to be sure I’m not
misquoted: no, I don’t think the election is “rigged”. Every
problem described herein can easily be attributed human error, and, as
such, I don’t think anyone at OSI has made an intentional plan
to make the elections unfair. Nevertheless, these mistakes and
irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an
unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election. I call on the OSI
to reopen the nominations for a few days, correct these problems, and
then extend the voting time accordingly.

(Recap on) First Irregularity

The first irregularity was
the miscommunication
about the nomination deadline
(as covered in
the press.
Instead of using the time zone of OSI’s legal home (in California), or the
standard FOSS community deadline of AoE (anywhere on earth) time, OSI
surreptitiously chose UTC and failed to communicate that decision properly.
According to my sources, only one email of 3(+) emails about the elections
included the fully qualified datetime of the deadline. Everywhere else
(including everywhere on OSI’s website) published only the date, not the
time. It was reasonable for nominators to assume the deadline was
US/Pacific — particularly since the nomination form still worked after
23:59 UTC passed.

Second Irregularity

Due to that first irregularity, this second (and most egregious)
irregularity is compounded even further.
All
year long, the OSI has communicated that, for 2025, elections are
for two “Member” seats
and one “Affiliate”
seat. Only
today (already 70% through the election cycle) did
OSI
(silently) correct this error. This change was made
well after nominations had closed (in every TZ). By
itself, the change in available seats after nominations closed makes
the 2025 OSI elections unfair. Here’s why: the Members and the
Affiliates are two entirely different sets of electorates.
Many candidates made complicated decisions about which seats to run
for based on the number of seats available in each class.
OSI is aware of that, too, because (a) we told them that during candidate
orientation, and
(b) Luke
said so publicly in their blog post (and OSI directly responded to Luke
in the press).

If we had known there were two Affiliate seats and
just one Member seat, Debian (an OSI Affiliate) would have
nominated Luke a week early to the Affiliate seat. Instead,
Debian’s leadership, Luke, Fontana, and I had a complex discussion in the
final week of nominations on how best
to run
as a “ticket of three”. In that discussion, Debian
leadership decided to nominate no one (instead of nominating
Luke) precisely because I was already nominated on a platform that
Debian supported, and Debian chose not to run a candidate against me for
the (at the time, purported) one Affiliate seat available.

But this irregularity didn’t just impact Debian, Fontana, Luke,
and me. I was nominated by four different Affiliates. My primary pitch to
ask them to nominate me was that there was just one Affiliate seat
available. Thus, I told them, if they nominated someone else, that candidate
would be effectively running against me. I’m quite sure at least one of
those Affiliates would have wanted to nominate someone else if only OSI had
told them the truth when it mattered: that Affiliates could easily elect both
me and a different candidate for two available Affiliate
seats. Meanwhile, who knows what other affiliates who nominated no one
would have done differently? OSI surely doesn’t know that. OSI has
treated every one of their Affiliates unfairly by changing the number of
seats available after the nominations closed.

Due to this Second Irregularity alone, I call on the OSI to reopen
nominations and reset the election cycle. The mistakes (as
played) actually benefit me as a candidate — since now I’m
running against a small field and there are two seats available. If
nominations reopen, I’ll surely face a crowded field with many viable
candidates added. Nevertheless, I am disgusted that I
unintentionally benefited from OSI’s election irregularity and I ask OSI
take corrective action to make the 2025 election fair.

The remaining irregularities are minor (by comparison, anyway), but I want
to make sure I list all the irregularities that I’ve seen in the 2025 OSI
Board Elections in this one place for everyone’s reference:

Third Irregularity

I was surprised when
OSI
published the slates of Affiliate candidates that they were not in
any (forward or reverse) alphabetical order — not candidate’s
first, last, or nominator name. Perhaps the slots in the voter’s guide
were assigned randomly, but if so, that is not disclosed
to the electorate. And, Who is listed first, you ask? Why,
the incumbent Affiliate candidate. The issue of
candidate ordering in voting guides and ballots has
been well
studied academically and, unsurprisingly, being listed first is known
to be an advantage. Given that incumbents already have an
advantage in all elections, putting the incumbent first without
stating that the slots in the voter guide were randomly assign makes the
2025 OSI Board election unfair.

I contacted OSI leadership within hours of the posting of the candidates
about this issue (at time of writing, that was four days ago) and they have
refused to respond nor have they corrected the issue. This compounds the
error, because OSI consciously choosing to list the incumbent
Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide on purpose.

Note that this problem is not confined to the “Affiliate
district”.
In the
“Member district”, my running mate, Richard Fontana, is
listed last in the voter guide for no apparent reason.

Fourth Irregularity

It’s (ostensibly) a good idea for the OSI to run a discussion forum for
the candidates (and kudos to OSI
( in
this instance, anyway ) for using the GPL’d Discourse software for the
purpose). however, the requirements to create an account and
respond to the questions exclude some Affiliate candidates.
Specifically, the OSI has stated that Affiliate candidates, and the
Affiliates that are their
electorate, need
not be Members of the OSI. Yet, to join the discussion forum,
one must become a member of
the OSI! While it might be reasonable to require all
Affiliate candidates become OSI Members, this was not disclosed until the
election started, so it’s unfair!

Some already argue
that since there is a free
(as in price) membership that this is a non-issue. I disagree, and
here’s why: Long ago, I had already decided that I would not become a
Member of OSI (for free or otherwise) because OSI
Members who
do not pay money are denied voting rights in these
elections! Yes, you read that right: the election for OSI
Directors in the “Members” seat literally has a poll
tax! I refuse to let OSI count me as a Member when the class of
membership they are offering to people who can’t afford to pay is a
second-class citizenship in OSI’s community. Anyway, there is no reason
that one should have to become a Member to post on the discussion fora
— particularly given that OSI has clearly stated that the Affiliate
candidates (and the Affiliate representatives who vote) are not required
to be individual Members.

(Keep in mind too that nonprofits gain power in lobbying and other similar
efforts by being able to saying We have N members.
It’s actually somewhat sneaky to make people become “free” OSI
Members merely to post on a discussion forum. This was an issue I was
planning to raise with the Board if elected (although, at the time of
launching my candidacy, was not urgent, but now has become such). I am
familiar with this inappropriate maneuver, in part due to the AARP in the
USA. Most people join the AARP to gain discounts on various services, but
then the AARP claims in lobbying that they represent the interests of all
these “members” — most of whom joined to get discounts on
services, not because they support the AARP’s political agenda. Similarly
here: I suspect that most OSI “free” Members probably merely
joined to comment on a thread or two on the discussion forum; not
necessarily because they are giving a mandate to OSI’s current
activities. )

Fifth Irregularity

This final irregularity is truly minor, but I mention it for completeness.
On the Affiliate candidate page, it seems as if each candidate is only
nominated by one affiliate. When I submitted my candidate statement, since
OSI told me they automatically filled in the nominating org, I had assumed
that all my nominating orgs would be listed. Instead, they listed only one.
If I’d known that, I’d have listed them at the beginning of my candidate
statement; my candidate statement was drafted under the assumption all my
nominating orgs would be listed elsewhere.

Sixth Irregularity

Update 2025-03-07. I received an unsolicited (but
welcome) email from an Executive Director of one
of OSI’s Affiliate
Organizations. This individual indicated they’d voted for me (I was
pleasantly surprised, because I thought their org was pro-OSAID, which I
immediately wrote back and told them). The irregularity here is
that OSI told candidates that the campaign period would
be 10 days, including two weekends in most places —
including orientation phone calls for candidates. They started the
campaign late, and didn’t communicate that they weren’t extending the
timeline, so the campaign period was about 6.5 days and included
only one weekend.

Meanwhile, during this extremely brief 6.5 day period, the election
coordinator at OSI was unavailable to answer inquiries from
candidates and Affiliates for at least three of those days. This
included sending one Affiliate an email with the subject line ”Rain
Check” in response to five questions they sent about the election
process, and its contents indicated that the OSI would be
unavailable to answers questions about the election — until after the
election!

OSI: either reopen nominations or just forget the elections

Again, I call on OSI to correct these irregularities, briefly reopen
nominations, and extend the voting deadline. However, if OSI doesn’t want to
do that, there is another reasonable solution. As explained
in OSI’s by-laws
and elsewhere,
OSI’s Directors elections are purely advisory. Like most
nonprofits, the OSI is governed by a self-perpetuating (not an elected)
Board. I bet with all the talk of elections, you didn’t even
know that!

Frankly, I have no qualms with a nonprofit structure that includes a
self-perpetuating Board. While it’s not a democratic structure, a
self-perpetuating Board of principled Directors does solve the problems
created in a Member-based organization. In Member-based organizations,
votes are for sale. Any company with resources to buy Memberships for its
employees can easily dominate the election. While OSI probably has yet to
experience this problem, if OSI grows its Membership (as it seeks to),
OSI will sure face that problem. Self-perpetuating Boards aren’t
perfect, but they do prevent this problem.

Meanwhile, having now witnessed OSI’s nomination and the campaign process
from the inside, it really does seem to me that OSI doesn’t really take
this election all that seriously. And, OSI already has in mind the kinds
of candidates they want. For example, during one of the two nominee
orientation calls, a key person in the OSI Leadership said (regarding items
4
of Fontana’s
and my shared platform) [quote paraphrased from my memory]: If you
don’t want to agree to these things, then an OSI Directorship is not for
you and you should withdraw and seek a place to serve elsewhere. I was
of course flabbergasted to be told that a desire to avoid proprietary
software should disqualify me (at least in view of the current OSI
leadership). But, that speaks to the fact that the OSI
doesn’t really want to have Board elections in the first place.
Indeed, based on that and many other things that the OSI leadership has
said during this process, it seems to me they’d actually rather hand-pick
Directors to serve than run a democratic process. There’s no shame
in a nonprofit that prefers a self-perpetuating Board; as I said,
most nonprofits are not Membership organizations nor allow any electorate
to fill Board seats.

Meanwhile, OSI’s halfway solution (i.e., a half-heartedly organized
election that isn’t really binding) seems designed to manufacture
consent. OSI’s Affiliates and paid individual Membership are given
the impression they have electoral power, but it’s an illusion.
Giving up on the whole illusion would be the most transparent choice for
OSI, and if the OSI would rather end these advisory elections and just
self-perpetuate, I’d support that decision.

Update on
2025-03-07: Chad
Whitacre, candidate in OSI’s “Member district”, has endorsed
my suggestion that OSI reopen nominations briefly for this election.
While I still urge voters in the “Member district” to rank my
running mate, Richard Fontana first in that race, I believe
Chad would be fine choice as your second listed candidate in the
rank choice voting.

Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/03/osi-board-elections-problems.html

I recently
announced that I was nominated for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board
of Directors as an “Affiliate” candidate. Many
irregularities have already occurred in this election cycle and I must
urgently draw everyone’s attention to them. And, to be sure I’m not
misquoted: no, I don’t think the election is “rigged”. Every
problem described herein can easily be attributed human error, and, as
such, I don’t think anyone at OSI has made an intentional plan
to make the elections unfair. Nevertheless, these mistakes and
irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an
unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election. I call on the OSI
to reopen the nominations for a few days, correct these problems, and
then extend the voting time accordingly.

(Recap on) First Irregularity

The first irregularity was
the miscommunication
about the nomination deadline
(as covered in
the press.
Instead of using the time zone of OSI’s legal home (in California), or the
standard FOSS community deadline of AoE (anywhere on earth) time, OSI
surreptitiously chose UTC and failed to communicate that decision properly.
According to my sources, only one email of 3(+) emails about the elections
included the fully qualified datetime of the deadline. Everywhere else
(including everywhere on OSI’s website) published only the date, not the
time. It was reasonable for nominators to assume the deadline was
US/Pacific — particularly since the nomination form still worked after
23:59 UTC passed.

Second Irregularity

Due to that first irregularity, this second (and most egregious)
irregularity is compounded even further.
All
year long, the OSI has communicated that, for 2025, elections are
for two “Member” seats
and one “Affiliate”
seat. Only
today (already 70% through the election cycle) did
OSI
(silently) correct this error. This change was made
well after nominations had closed (in every TZ). By
itself, the change in available seats after nominations closed makes
the 2025 OSI elections unfair. Here’s why: the Members and the
Affiliates are two entirely different sets of electorates.
Many candidates made complicated decisions about which seats to run
for based on the number of seats available in each class.
OSI is aware of that, too, because (a) we told them that during candidate
orientation, and
(b) Luke
said so publicly in their blog post (and OSI directly responded to Luke
in the press).

If we had known there were two Affiliate seats and
just one Member seat, Debian (an OSI Affiliate) would have
nominated Luke a week early to the Affiliate seat. Instead,
Debian’s leadership, Luke, Fontana, and I had a complex discussion in the
final week of nominations on how best
to run
as a “ticket of three”. In that discussion, Debian
leadership decided to nominate no one (instead of nominating
Luke) precisely because I was already nominated on a platform that
Debian supported, and Debian chose not to run a candidate against me for
the (at the time, purported) one Affiliate seat available.

But this irregularity didn’t just impact Debian, Fontana, Luke,
and me. I was nominated by four different Affiliates. My primary pitch to
ask them to nominate me was that there was just one Affiliate seat
available. Thus, I told them, if they nominated someone else, that candidate
would be effectively running against me. I’m quite sure at least one of
those Affiliates would have wanted to nominate someone else if only OSI had
told them the truth when it mattered: that Affiliates could easily elect both
me and a different candidate for two available Affiliate
seats. Meanwhile, who knows what other affiliates who nominated no one
would have done differently? OSI surely doesn’t know that. OSI has
treated every one of their Affiliates unfairly by changing the number of
seats available after the nominations closed.

Due to this Second Irregularity alone, I call on the OSI to reopen
nominations and reset the election cycle. The mistakes (as
played) actually benefit me as a candidate — since now I’m
running against a small field and there are two seats available. If
nominations reopen, I’ll surely face a crowded field with many viable
candidates added. Nevertheless, I am disgusted that I
unintentionally benefited from OSI’s election irregularity and I ask OSI
take corrective action to make the 2025 election fair.

The remaining irregularities are minor (by comparison, anyway), but I want
to make sure I list all the irregularities that I’ve seen in the 2025 OSI
Board Elections in this one place for everyone’s reference:

Third Irregularity

I was surprised when
OSI
published the slates of Affiliate candidates that they were not in
any (forward or reverse) alphabetical order — not candidate’s
first, last, or nominator name. Perhaps the slots in the voter’s guide
were assigned randomly, but if so, that is not disclosed
to the electorate. And, Who is listed first, you ask? Why,
the incumbent Affiliate candidate. The issue of
candidate ordering in voting guides and ballots has
been well
studied academically and, unsurprisingly, being listed first is known
to be an advantage. Given that incumbents already have an
advantage in all elections, putting the incumbent first without
stating that the slots in the voter guide were randomly assign makes the
2025 OSI Board election unfair.

I contacted OSI leadership within hours of the posting of the candidates
about this issue (at time of writing, that was four days ago) and they have
refused to respond nor have they corrected the issue. This compounds the
error, because OSI consciously choosing to list the incumbent
Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide on purpose.

Note that this problem is not confined to the “Affiliate
district”.
In the
“Member district”, my running mate, Richard Fontana, is
listed last in the voter guide for no apparent reason.

Fourth Irregularity

It’s (ostensibly) a good idea for the OSI to run a discussion forum for
the candidates (and kudos to OSI
( in
this instance, anyway ) for using the GPL’d Discourse software for the
purpose). however, the requirements to create an account and
respond to the questions exclude some Affiliate candidates.
Specifically, the OSI has stated that Affiliate candidates, and the
Affiliates that are their
electorate, need
not be Members of the OSI. Yet, to join the discussion forum,
one must become a member of
the OSI! While it might be reasonable to require all
Affiliate candidates become OSI Members, this was not disclosed until the
election started, so it’s unfair!

Some already argue
that since there is a free
(as in price) membership that this is a non-issue. I disagree, and
here’s why: Long ago, I had already decided that I would not become a
Member of OSI (for free or otherwise) because OSI
Members who
do not pay money are denied voting rights in these
elections! Yes, you read that right: the election for OSI
Directors in the “Members” seat literally has a poll
tax! I refuse to let OSI count me as a Member when the class of
membership they are offering to people who can’t afford to pay is a
second-class citizenship in OSI’s community. Anyway, there is no reason
that one should have to become a Member to post on the discussion fora
— particularly given that OSI has clearly stated that the Affiliate
candidates (and the Affiliate representatives who vote) are not required
to be individual Members.

(Keep in mind too that nonprofits gain power in lobbying and other similar
efforts by being able to saying We have N members.
It’s actually somewhat sneaky to make people become “free” OSI
Members merely to post on a discussion forum. This was an issue I was
planning to raise with the Board if elected (although, at the time of
launching my candidacy, was not urgent, but now has become such). I am
familiar with this inappropriate maneuver, in part due to the AARP in the
USA. Most people join the AARP to gain discounts on various services, but
then the AARP claims in lobbying that they represent the interests of all
these “members” — most of whom joined to get discounts on
services, not because they support the AARP’s political agenda. Similarly
here: I suspect that most OSI “free” Members probably merely
joined to comment on a thread or two on the discussion forum; not
necessarily because they are giving a mandate to OSI’s current
activities. )

Fifth Irregularity

This final irregularity is truly minor, but I mention it for completeness.
On the Affiliate candidate page, it seems as if each candidate is only
nominated by one affiliate. When I submitted my candidate statement, since
OSI told me they automatically filled in the nominating org, I had assumed
that all my nominating orgs would be listed. Instead, they listed only one.
If I’d known that, I’d have listed them at the beginning of my candidate
statement; my candidate statement was drafted under the assumption all my
nominating orgs would be listed elsewhere.

OSI: either reopen nominations or just forget the elections

Again, I call on OSI to correct these irregularities, briefly reopen
nominations, and extend the voting deadline. However, if OSI doesn’t want to
do that, there is another reasonable solution. As explained
in OSI’s by-laws
and elsewhere,
OSI’s Directors elections are purely advisory. Like most
nonprofits, the OSI is governed by a self-perpetuating (not an elected)
Board. I bet with all the talk of elections, you didn’t even
know that!

Frankly, I have no qualms with a nonprofit structure that includes a
self-perpetuating Board. While it’s not a democratic structure, a
self-perpetuating Board of principled Directors does solve the problems
created in a Member-based organization. In Member-based organizations,
votes are for sale. Any company with resources to buy Memberships for its
employees can easily dominate the election. While OSI probably has yet to
experience this problem, if OSI grows its Membership (as it seeks to),
OSI will sure face that problem. Self-perpetuating Boards aren’t
perfect, but they do prevent this problem.

Meanwhile, having now witnessed OSI’s nomination and the campaign process
from the inside, it really does seem to me that OSI doesn’t really take
this election all that seriously. And, OSI already has in mind the kinds
of candidates they want. For example, during one of the two nominee
orientation calls, a key person in the OSI Leadership said (regarding items
4
of Fontana’s
and my shared platform) [quote paraphrased from my memory]: If you
don’t want to agree to these things, then an OSI Directorship is not for
you and you should withdraw and seek a place to serve elsewhere. I was
of course flabbergasted to be told that a desire to avoid proprietary
software should disqualify me (at least in view of the current OSI
leadership). But, that speaks to the fact that the OSI
doesn’t really want to have Board elections in the first place.
Indeed, based on that and many other things that the OSI leadership has
said during this process, it seems to me they’d actually rather hand-pick
Directors to serve than run a democratic process. There’s no shame
in a nonprofit that prefers a self-perpetuating Board; as I said,
most nonprofits are not Membership organizations nor allow any electorate
to fill Board seats.

Meanwhile, OSI’s halfway solution (i.e., a half-heartedly organized
election that isn’t really binding) seems designed to manufacture
consent. OSI’s Affiliates and paid individual Membership are given
the impression they have electoral power, but it’s an illusion.
Giving up on the whole illusion would be the most transparent choice for
OSI, and if the OSI would rather end these advisory elections and just
self-perpetuate, I’d support that decision.

Update on
2025-03-07: Chad
Whitacre, candidate in OSI’s “Member district”, has endorsed
my suggestion that OSI reopen nominations briefly for this election.
While I still urge voters in the “Member district” to rank my
running mate, Richard Fontana first in that race, I believe
Chad would be fine choice as your second listed candidate in the
rank choice voting.

Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/03/osi-board-elections-problems.html

I recently
announced that I was nominated for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board
of Directors as an “Affiliate” candidate. Many
irregularities have already occurred in this election cycle and I must
urgently draw everyone’s attention to them. And, to be sure I’m not
misquoted: no, I don’t think the election is “rigged”. Every
problem described herein can easily be attributed human error, and, as
such, I don’t think anyone at OSI has made an intentional plan
to make the elections unfair. Nevertheless, these mistakes and
irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an
unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election. I call on the OSI
to reopen the nominations for a few days, correct these problems, and
then extend the voting time accordingly.

(Recap on) First Irregularity

The first irregularity was
the miscommunication
about the nomination deadline
(as covered in
the press.
Instead of using the time zone of OSI’s legal home (in California), or the
standard FOSS community deadline of AoE (anywhere on earth) time, OSI
surreptitiously chose UTC and failed to communicate that decision properly.
According to my sources, only one email of 3(+) emails about the elections
included the fully qualified datetime of the deadline. Everywhere else
(including everywhere on OSI’s website) published only the date, not the
time. It was reasonable for nominators to assume the deadline was
US/Pacific — particularly since the nomination form still worked after
23:59 UTC passed.

Second Irregularity

Due to that first irregularity, this second (and most egregious)
irregularity is compounded even further.
All
year long, the OSI has communicated that, for 2025, elections are
for two “Member” seats
and one “Affiliate”
seat. Only
today (already 70% through the election cycle) did
OSI
(silently) correct this error. This change was made
well after nominations had closed (in every TZ). By
itself, the change in available seats after nominations closed makes
the 2025 OSI elections unfair. Here’s why: the Members and the
Affiliates are two entirely different sets of electorates.
Many candidates made complicated decisions about which seats to run
for based on the number of seats available in each class.
OSI is aware of that, too, because (a) we told them that during candidate
orientation, and
(b) Luke
said so publicly in their blog post (and OSI directly responded to Luke
in the press).

If we had known there were two Affiliate seats and
just one Member seat, Debian (an OSI Affiliate) would have
nominated Luke a week early to the Affiliate seat. Instead,
Debian’s leadership, Luke, Fontana, and I had a complex discussion in the
final week of nominations on how best
to run
as a “ticket of three”. In that discussion, Debian
leadership decided to nominate no one (instead of nominating
Luke) precisely because I was already nominated on a platform that
Debian supported, and Debian chose not to run a candidate against me for
the (at the time, purported) one Affiliate seat available.

But this irregularity didn’t just impact Debian, Fontana, Luke,
and me. I was nominated by four different Affiliates. My primary pitch to
ask them to nominate me was that there was just one Affiliate seat
available. Thus, I told them, if they nominated someone else, that candidate
would be effectively running against me. I’m quite sure at least one of
those Affiliates would have wanted to nominate someone else if only OSI had
told them the truth when it mattered: that Affiliates could easily elect both
me and a different candidate for two available Affiliate
seats. Meanwhile, who knows what other affiliates who nominated no one
would have done differently? OSI surely doesn’t know that. OSI has
treated every one of their Affiliates unfairly by changing the number of
seats available after the nominations closed.

Due to this Second Irregularity alone, I call on the OSI to reopen
nominations and reset the election cycle. The mistakes (as
played) actually benefit me as a candidate — since now I’m
running against a small field and there are two seats available. If
nominations reopen, I’ll surely face a crowded field with many viable
candidates added. Nevertheless, I am disgusted that I
unintentionally benefited from OSI’s election irregularity and I ask OSI
take corrective action to make the 2025 election fair.

The remaining irregularities are minor (by comparison, anyway), but I want
to make sure I list all the irregularities that I’ve seen in the 2025 OSI
Board Elections in this one place for everyone’s reference:

Third Irregularity

I was surprised when
OSI
published the slates of Affiliate candidates that they were not in
any (forward or reverse) alphabetical order — not candidate’s
first, last, or nominator name. Perhaps the slots in the voter’s guide
were assigned randomly, but if so, that is not disclosed
to the electorate. And, Who is listed first, you ask? Why,
the incumbent Affiliate candidate. The issue of
candidate ordering in voting guides and ballots has
been well
studied academically and, unsurprisingly, being listed first is known
to be an advantage. Given that incumbents already have an
advantage in all elections, putting the incumbent first without
stating that the slots in the voter guide were randomly assign makes the
2025 OSI Board election unfair.

I contacted OSI leadership within hours of the posting of the candidates
about this issue (at time of writing, that was four days ago) and they have
refused to respond nor have they corrected the issue. This compounds the
error, because OSI consciously choosing to list the incumbent
Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide on purpose.

Note that this problem is not confined to the “Affiliate
district”.
In the
“Member district”, my running mate, Richard Fontana, is
listed last in the voter guide for no apparent reason.

Fourth Irregularity

It’s (ostensibly) a good idea for the OSI to run a discussion forum for
the candidates (and kudos to OSI
( in
this instance, anyway ) for using the GPL’d Discourse software for the
purpose). however, the requirements to create an account and
respond to the questions exclude some Affiliate candidates.
Specifically, the OSI has stated that Affiliate candidates, and the
Affiliates that are their
electorate, need
not be Members of the OSI. Yet, to join the discussion forum,
one must become a member of
the OSI! While it might be reasonable to require all
Affiliate candidates become OSI Members, this was not disclosed until the
election started, so it’s unfair!

Some already argue
that since there is a free
(as in price) membership that this is a non-issue. I disagree, and
here’s why: Long ago, I had already decided that I would not become a
Member of OSI (for free or otherwise) because OSI
Members who
do not pay money are denied voting rights in these
elections! Yes, you read that right: the election for OSI
Directors in the “Members” seat literally has a poll
tax! I refuse to let OSI count me as a Member when the class of
membership they are offering to people who can’t afford to pay is a
second-class citizenship in OSI’s community. Anyway, there is no reason
that one should have to become a Member to post on the discussion fora
— particularly given that OSI has clearly stated that the Affiliate
candidates (and the Affiliate representatives who vote) are not required
to be individual Members.

(Keep in mind too that nonprofits gain power in lobbying and other similar
efforts by being able to saying We have N members.
It’s actually somewhat sneaky to make people become “free” OSI
Members merely to post on a discussion forum. This was an issue I was
planning to raise with the Board if elected (although, at the time of
launching my candidacy, was not urgent, but now has become such). I am
familiar with this inappropriate maneuver, in part due to the AARP in the
USA. Most people join the AARP to gain discounts on various services, but
then the AARP claims in lobbying that they represent the interests of all
these “members” — most of whom joined to get discounts on
services, not because they support the AARP’s political agenda. Similarly
here: I suspect that most OSI “free” Members probably merely
joined to comment on a thread or two on the discussion forum; not
necessarily because they are giving a mandate to OSI’s current
activities. )

Fifth Irregularity

This final irregularity is truly minor, but I mention it for completeness.
On the Affiliate candidate page, it seems as if each candidate is only
nominated by one affiliate. When I submitted my candidate statement, since
OSI told me they automatically filled in the nominating org, I had assumed
that all my nominating orgs would be listed. Instead, they listed only one.
If I’d known that, I’d have listed them at the beginning of my candidate
statement; my candidate statement was drafted under the assumption all my
nominating orgs would be listed elsewhere.

OSI: either reopen nominations or just forget the elections

Again, I call on OSI to correct these irregularities, briefly reopen
nominations, and extend the voting deadline. However, if OSI doesn’t want to
do that, there is another reasonable solution. As explained
in OSI’s by-laws
and elsewhere,
OSI’s Directors elections are purely advisory. Like most
nonprofits, the OSI is governed by a self-perpetuating (not an elected)
Board. I bet with all the talk of elections, you didn’t even
know that!

Frankly, I have no qualms with a nonprofit structure that includes a
self-perpetuating Board. While it’s not a democratic structure, a
self-perpetuating Board of principled Directors does solve the problems
created in a Member-based organization. In Member-based organizations,
votes are for sale. Any company with resources to buy Memberships for its
employees can easily dominate the election. While OSI probably has yet to
experience this problem, if OSI grows its Membership (as it seeks to),
OSI will sure face that problem. Self-perpetuating Boards aren’t
perfect, but they do prevent this problem.

Meanwhile, having now witnessed OSI’s nomination and the campaign process
from the inside, it really does seem to me that OSI doesn’t really take
this election all that seriously. And, OSI already has in mind the kinds
of candidates they want. For example, during one of the two nominee
orientation calls, a key person in the OSI Leadership said (regarding items
4
of Fontana’s
and my shared platform) [quote paraphrased from my memory]: If you
don’t want to agree to these things, then an OSI Directorship is not for
you and you should withdraw and seek a place to serve elsewhere. I was
of course flabbergasted to be told that a desire to avoid proprietary
software should disqualify me (at least in view of the current OSI
leadership). But, that speaks to the fact that the OSI
doesn’t really want to have Board elections in the first place.
Indeed, based on that and many other things that the OSI leadership has
said during this process, it seems to me they’d actually rather hand-pick
Directors to serve than run a democratic process. There’s no shame
in a nonprofit that prefers a self-perpetuating Board; as I said,
most nonprofits are not Membership organizations nor allow any electorate
to fill Board seats.

Meanwhile, OSI’s halfway solution (i.e., a half-heartedly organized
election that isn’t really binding) seems designed to manufacture
consent. OSI’s Affiliates and paid individual Membership are given
the impression they have electoral power, but it’s an illusion.
Giving up on the whole illusion would be the most transparent choice for
OSI, and if the OSI would rather end these advisory elections and just
self-perpetuate, I’d support that decision.

Update on
2025-03-07: Chad
Whitacre, candidate in OSI’s “Member district”, has endorsed
my suggestion that OSI reopen nominations briefly for this election.
While I still urge voters in the “Member district” to rank my
running mate, Richard Fontana first in that race, I believe
Chad would be fine choice as your second listed candidate in the
rank choice voting.

Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/03/osi-board-elections-problems.html

I recently
announced that I was nominated for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board
of Directors as an “Affiliate” candidate. Many
irregularities have already occurred in this election cycle and I must
urgently draw everyone’s attention to them. And, to be sure I’m not
misquoted: no, I don’t think the election is “rigged”. Every
problem described herein can easily be attributed human error, and, as
such, I don’t think anyone at OSI has made an intentional plan
to make the elections unfair. Nevertheless, these mistakes and
irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an
unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election. I call on the OSI
to reopen the nominations for a few days, correct these problems, and
then extend the voting time accordingly.

(Recap on) First Irregularity

The first irregularity was
the miscommunication
about the nomination deadline (as covered
the press.
Instead of using the time zone of OSI’s legal home (in California, or the
standard FOSS community deadline of AoE (anywhere on earth) time), OSI
surreptitiously chose UTC and failed to communicate that decision properly.
According to my sources, only one email of 3(+) emails about the elections
included the fully qualified datetime of the deadline. Everywhere else
(including everywhere on OSI’s website) published only the date, not the
time. It was reasonable for nominators to assume the deadline was
US/Pacific — particularly since the nomination form still worked after
23:59 UTC passed.

Second Irregularity

Due to that first irregularity, this second (and most egregious)
irregularity is compounded even further.
All
year long, the OSI has communicated that, for 2025, elections are
for two “Member” seats
and one “Affiliate”
seat. Only
today (already 70% through the election cycle) did
OSI
(silently) correct this error. This change was made
well after nominations had closed (in every TZ). By
itself, the change in available seats after nominations closed makes
the 2025 OSI elections unfair. Here’s why: the Members and the
Affiliates are two entirely different sets of electorates.
Many candidates made complicated decisions about which seats to run
for based on the number of seats available in each class.
OSI is aware of that, too, because (a) we told them that during candidate
orientation, and
(b) Luke
said so publicly in their blog post (and OSI directly responded to Luke
in the press).

If we had known there were two Affiliate seats and
just one Member seat, Debian (an OSI Affiliate) would have
nominated Luke a week early to the Affiliate seat. Instead,
Debian’s leadership, Luke, Fontana, and I had a complex discussion in the
final week of nominations on how best
to run
as a “ticket of three”. In that discussion, Debian
leadership decided to nominate no one (instead of nominating
Luke) precisely because I was already nominated on a platform that
Debian supported, and Debian chose not to run a candidate against me for
the (at the time, purported) one Affiliate seat available.

But this irregularity didn’t just impact Debian, Fontana, Luke,
and me. I was nominated by four different Affiliates. My primary pitch to
ask them to nominate me was that there was just one Affiliate seat
available. Thus, I told them, if they nominated someone else, that candidate
would be effectively running against me. I’m quite sure at least one of
those Affiliates would have wanted to nominate someone else OSI had told them
they could easily elect both me and a different candidate
for two available Affiliate seats. Meanwhile, who knows what other
affiliates who nominated no one would have done differently? OSI surely
doesn’t know that. OSI has treated every one of their Affiliates
unfairly by changing the number of seats available after the nominations
closed.

Due to this Second Irregularity alone, I call on the OSI to reopen
nominations and reset the election cycle. The mistakes (as
played) actually benefit me as a candidate — since now I’m
running against a small field and there are two seats available. If
nominations reopen, I’ll surely face a crowded field with many viable
candidates added. Nevertheless, I am disgusted that I am
unintentionally benefiting from OSI’s election irregularity and I ask OSI
take corrective action to make the 2025 election fair.

The remaining irregularities are minor (by comparison, anyway), but I want
to make sure I list all the irregularities that I’ve seen in the 2025 OSI
Board Elections in this one place for everyone’s reference:

Third Irregularity

I was surprised when
OSI
published the slates of Affiliate candidates that they were not in
any (forward or reverse) alphabetical order — not candidate’s
first, last, or nominator name. Perhaps the slots in the voter’s guide
were assigned randomly, but if so, that is not disclosed
to the electorate. And, Who is listed first, you ask? Why,
the incumbent Affiliate candidate. The issue of
candidate ordering in voting guides and ballots has
been well
studied academically and, unsurprisingly, being listed first is known
to be an advantage. Given that incumbents already have an
advantage in all elections, putting the incumbent first without
stating that the slots in the voter guide were randomly assign makes the
2025 OSI Board election unfair.

I contacted OSI leadership within hours of the posting of the candidates
about this issue (at time of writing, that was four days ago) and they have
refused to respond nor have they corrected the issue. This compounds the
error, because OSI consciously choosing to list the incumbent
Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide on purpose.

Fourth Irregularity

It’s (ostensibly) a good idea for the OSI to run a discussion forum for
the candidates (and kudos to OSI
( in
this instance, anyway ) for using the GPL’d Discourse software for the
purpose). however, the requirements to create an account and
respond to the questions exclude some Affiliate candidates.
Specifically, the OSI has stated that Affiliate candidates, and the
Affiliates that are their
electorate, need
not be Members of the OSI. Yet, to join the discussion forum,
one must become a member of
the OSI! While it might be reasonable to require all
Affiliate candidates become OSI Members, this was not disclosed until the
election started, so it’s unfair!

Some already argue
that since there is a free
(as in price) membership that this is a non-issue. I disagree, and
here’s why: Long ago, I had already decided that I would not become a
Member of OSI (for free or otherwise) because OSI
Members who
do not pay money are denied voting rights in these
elections! Yes, you read that right: the election for OSI
Directors in the “Members” seat literally has a poll
tax! I refuse to let OSI count me as a Member when the class of
membership they are offering to people who can’t afford to pay is a
second-class citizenship in OSI’s community. Anyway, there is no reason
that one should have to become a Member to post on the discussion fora
— particularly given that OSI has clearly stated that the Affiliate
candidates (and the Affiliate representatives who vote) are not required
to be individual Members.

(Keep in mind too that nonprofits gain power in lobbying and other similar
efforts by being able to saying We have N members.
It’s actually somewhat sneaky to make people become “free” OSI
Members merely to post on a discussion forum. This was an issue I was
planning to raise with the Board if elected (although, at the time of
launching my candidacy, was not urgent, but now has become such). I am
familiar with this inappropriate maneuver, in part due to the AARP in the
USA. Most people join the AARP to gain discounts on various services, but
then the AARP claims in lobbying that they represent the interests of all
these “members” — most of whom joined to get discounts on
services, not because they support the AARP’s political agenda. Similarly
here: I suspect that most OSI “free” Members probably merely
joined to comment on a thread or two on the discussion forum; not
necessarily because they are giving a mandate to OSI’s current
activities. )

Fifth Irregularity

This final irregularity is truly minor, but I mention it for completeness.
On the Affiliate candidate page, it seems as if each candidate is only
nominated by one affiliate. When I submitted my candidate statement, since
OSI told me they automatically filled in the nominating org, I had assumed
that all my nominating orgs would be listed. Instead, they listed only one.
If I’d known that, I’d have listed them at the beginning of my candidate
statement; my candidate statement was drafted under the assumption all my
nominating orgs would be listed elsewhere.

OSI: either reopen nominations or just forget the elections

Again, I call on OSI to correct these irregularities, briefly reopen
nominations, and extend the voting deadline. However, if OSI doesn’t want to
do that, there is another reasonable solution. As explained
in OSI’s by-laws
and elsewhere,
OSI’s Directors elections are purely advisory. Like most
noprofits, the OSI is governed by a self-perpetuating (not an elected)
Board. I bet with all the talk of elections, you didn’t even
know that!

Frankly, I have no qualms with a nonprofit structure that includes a
self-perpetuating Board. While it’s not a democratic structure, a
self-perpetuating Board of principled Directors does solve the problems
created in a Member-based organization. In Member-based organizations,
votes are for sale. Any company with resources to buy Memberships for its
employees can easily dominate the election. While OSI probably has yet to
experience this problem, if OSI grows its Membership (as it seeks to),
OSI will sure face that problem. Self-perpetuating Boards aren’t
perfect, but they do prevent this problem.

Meanwhile, having now witnessed OSI’s nomination and the campaign process
from the inside, it really does seem to me that OSI doesn’t really take
this election all that seriously. And, OSI already has in mind the kinds
of candidates they want. For example, during one of the two nominee
orientation calls, a key person in the OSI Leadership said (regarding items
4
of Fontana’s
and my shared platform) [quote paraphrased from my memory]: If you
don’t want to agree to these things, then an OSI Directorship is not for
you and you should withdraw and seek a place to serve elsewhere. I was
of course flabbergasted to be told that a desire to avoid proprietary
software should disqualify me (at least in view of the current OSI
leadership). But, that speaks to the fact that the OSI
doesn’t really want to have Board elections in the first place.
Indeed, based on that and many other things that the OSI leadership has
said during this process, it seems to me they’d actually rather hand-pick
Directors to serve than run a democratic process. There’s no shame
in a nonprofit that prefers a self-perpetuating Board; as I said,
most nonprofits are not Membership organizations nor allow any electorate
to fill Board seats.

Meanwhile, OSI’s halfway solution (i.e., a half-heartedly organized
election that isn’t really binding) seems designed to manufacture
consent. OSI’s Affiliates and paid individual Membership are given
the impression they have electoral power, but it’s an illusion.
Giving up on the whole illusion would be the most transparent choice for
OSI, and if the OSI would rather end these advisory elections and just
self-perpetuate, I’d support that decision.

Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/03/osi-board-elections-problems.html

I recently
announced that I was nominated for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board
of Directors as an “Affiliate” candidate. Many
irregularities have already occurred in this election cycle and I must
urgently draw everyone’s attention to them. And, to be sure I’m not
misquoted: no, I don’t think the election is “rigged”. Every
problem described herein can easily be attributed human error, and, as
such, I don’t think anyone at OSI has made an intentional plan
to make the elections unfair. Nevertheless, these mistakes and
irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an
unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election. I call on the OSI
to reopen the nominations for a few days, correct these problems, and
then extend the voting time accordingly.

(Recap on) First Irregularity

The first irregularity was
the miscommunication
about the nomination deadline (as covered
the press.
Instead of using the time zone of OSI’s legal home (in California, or the
standard FOSS community deadline of AoE (anywhere on earth) time), OSI
surreptitiously chose UTC and failed to communicate that decision properly.
According to my sources, only one email of 3(+) emails about the elections
included the fully qualified datetime of the deadline. Everywhere else
(including everywhere on OSI’s website) published only the date, not the
time. It was reasonable for nominators to assume the deadline was
US/Pacific — particularly since the nomination form still worked after
23:59 UTC passed.

Second Irregularity

Due to that first irregularity, this second (and most egregious)
irregularity is compounded even further.
All
year long, the OSI has communicated that, for 2025, elections are
for two “Member” seats
and one “Affiliate”
seat. Only
today (already 70% through the election cycle) did
OSI
(silently) correct this error. This change was made
well after nominations had closed (in every TZ). By
itself, the change in available seats after nominations closed makes
the 2025 OSI elections unfair. Here’s why: the Members and the
Affiliates are two entirely different sets of electorates.
Many candidates made complicated decisions about which seats to run
for based on the number of seats available in each class.
OSI is aware of that, too, because (a) we told them that during candidate
orientation, and
(b) Luke
said so publicly in their blog post (and OSI directly responded to Luke
in the press).

If we had known there were two Affiliate seats and
just one Member seat, Debian (an OSI Affiliate) would have
nominated Luke a week early to the Affiliate seat. Instead,
Debian’s leadership, Luke, Fontana, and I had a complex discussion in the
final week of nominations on how best
to run
as a “ticket of three”. In that discussion, Debian
leadership decided to nominate no one (instead of nominating
Luke) precisely because I was already nominated on a platform that
Debian supported, and Debian chose not to run a candidate against me for
the (at the time, purported) one Affiliate seat available.

But this irregularity didn’t just impact Debian, Fontana, Luke,
and me. I was nominated by four different Affiliates. My primary pitch to
ask them to nominate me was that there was just one Affiliate seat
available. Thus, I told them, if they nominated someone else, that candidate
would be effectively running against me. I’m quite sure at least one of
those Affiliates would have wanted to nominate someone else OSI had told them
they could easily elect both me and a different candidate
for two available Affiliate seats. Meanwhile, who knows what other
affiliates who nominated no one would have done differently? OSI surely
doesn’t know that. OSI has treated every one of their Affiliates
unfairly by changing the number of seats available after the nominations
closed.

Due to this Second Irregularity alone, I call on the OSI to reopen
nominations and reset the election cycle. The mistakes (as
played) actually benefit me as a candidate — since now I’m
running against a small field and there are two seats available. If
nominations reopen, I’ll surely face a crowded field with many viable
candidates added. Nevertheless, I am disgusted that I am
unintentionally benefiting from OSI’s election irregularity and I ask OSI
take corrective action to make the 2025 election fair.

The remaining irregularities are minor (by comparison, anyway), but I want
to make sure I list all the irregularities that I’ve seen in the 2025 OSI
Board Elections in this one place for everyone’s reference:

Third Irregularity

I was surprised when
OSI
published the slates of Affiliate candidates that they were not in
any (forward or reverse) alphabetical order — not candidate’s
first, last, or nominator name. Perhaps the slots in the voter’s guide
were assigned randomly, but if so, that is not disclosed
to the electorate. And, Who is listed first, you ask? Why,
the incumbent Affiliate candidate. The issue of
candidate ordering in voting guides and ballots has
been well
studied academically and, unsurprisingly, being listed first is known
to be an advantage. Given that incumbents already have an
advantage in all elections, putting the incumbent first without
stating that the slots in the voter guide were randomly assign makes the
2025 OSI Board election unfair.

I contacted OSI leadership within hours of the posting of the candidates
about this issue (at time of writing, that was four days ago) and they have
refused to respond nor have they corrected the issue. This compounds the
error, because OSI consciously choosing to list the incumbent
Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide on purpose.

Fourth Irregularity

It’s (ostensibly) a good idea for the OSI to run a discussion forum for
the candidates (and kudos to OSI
( in
this instance, anyway ) for using the GPL’d Discourse software for the
purpose). however, the requirements to create an account and
respond to the questions exclude some Affiliate candidates.
Specifically, the OSI has stated that Affiliate candidates, and the
Affiliates that are their
electorate, need
not be Members of the OSI. Yet, to join the discussion forum,
one must become a member of
the OSI! While it might be reasonable to require all
Affiliate candidates become OSI Members, this was not disclosed until the
election started, so it’s unfair!

Some already argue
that since there is a free
(as in price) membership that this is a non-issue. I disagree, and
here’s why: Long ago, I had already decided that I would not become a
Member of OSI (for free or otherwise) because OSI
Members who
do not pay money are denied voting rights in these
elections! Yes, you read that right: the election for OSI
Directors in the “Members” seat literally has a poll
tax! I refuse to let OSI count me as a Member when the class of
membership they are offering to people who can’t afford to pay is a
second-class citizenship in OSI’s community. Anyway, there is no reason
that one should have to become a Member to post on the discussion fora
— particularly given that OSI has clearly stated that the Affiliate
candidates (and the Affiliate representatives who vote) are not required
to be individual Members.

(Keep in mind too that nonprofits gain power in lobbying and other similar
efforts by being able to saying We have N members.
It’s actually somewhat sneaky to make people become “free” OSI
Members merely to post on a discussion forum. This was an issue I was
planning to raise with the Board if elected (although, at the time of
launching my candidacy, was not urgent, but now has become such). I am
familiar with this inappropriate maneuver, in part due to the AARP in the
USA. Most people join the AARP to gain discounts on various services, but
then the AARP claims in lobbying that they represent the interests of all
these “members” — most of whom joined to get discounts on
services, not because they support the AARP’s political agenda. Similarly
here: I suspect that most OSI “free” Members probably merely
joined to comment on a thread or two on the discussion forum; not
necessarily because they are giving a mandate to OSI’s current
activities. )

Fifth Irregularity

This final irregularity is truly minor, but I mention it for completeness.
On the Affiliate candidate page, it seems as if each candidate is only
nominated by one affiliate. When I submitted my candidate statement, since
OSI told me they automatically filled in the nominating org, I had assumed
that all my nominating orgs would be listed. Instead, they listed only one.
If I’d known that, I’d have listed them at the beginning of my candidate
statement; my candidate statement was drafted under the assumption all my
nominating orgs would be listed elsewhere.

OSI: either reopen nominations or just forget the elections

Again, I call on OSI to correct these irregularities, briefly reopen
nominations, and extend the voting deadline. However, if OSI doesn’t want to
do that, there is another reasonable solution. As explained
in OSI’s by-laws
and elsewhere,
OSI’s Directors elections are purely advisory. Like most
noprofits, the OSI is governed by a self-perpetuating (not an elected)
Board. I bet with all the talk of elections, you didn’t even
know that!

Frankly, I have no qualms with a nonprofit structure that includes a
self-perpetuating Board. While it’s not a democratic structure, a
self-perpetuating Board of principled Directors does solve the problems
created in a Member-based organization. In Member-based organizations,
votes are for sale. Any company with resources to buy Memberships for its
employees can easily dominate the election. While OSI probably has yet to
experience this problem, if OSI grows its Membership (as it seeks to),
OSI will sure face that problem. Self-perpetuating Boards aren’t
perfect, but they do prevent this problem.

Meanwhile, having now witnessed OSI’s nomination and the campaign process
from the inside, it really does seem to me that OSI doesn’t really take
this election all that seriously. And, OSI already has in mind the kinds
of candidates they want. For example, during one of the two nominee
orientation calls, a key person in the OSI Leadership said (regarding items
4
of Fontana’s
and my shared platform) [quote paraphrased from my memory]: If you
don’t want to agree to these things, then an OSI Directorship is not for
you and you should withdraw and seek a place to serve elsewhere. I was
of course flabbergasted to be told that a desire to avoid proprietary
software should disqualify me (at least in view of the current OSI
leadership). But, that speaks to the fact that the OSI
doesn’t really want to have Board elections in the first place.
Indeed, based on that and many other things that the OSI leadership has
said during this process, it seems to me they’d actually rather hand-pick
Directors to serve than run a democratic process. There’s no shame
in a nonprofit that prefers a self-perpetuating Board; as I said,
most nonprofits are not Membership organizations nor allow any electorate
to fill Board seats.

Meanwhile, OSI’s halfway solution (i.e., a half-heartedly organized
election that isn’t really binding) seems designed to manufacture
consent. OSI’s Affiliates and paid individual Membership are given
the impression they have electoral power, but it’s an illusion.
Giving up on the whole illusion would be the most transparent choice for
OSI, and if the OSI would rather end these advisory elections and just
self-perpetuate, I’d support that decision.

Intel E830 for 25GbE to 200GbE and E610 for 10GbE and 2.5GbE NICs Launched

Post Syndicated from Rohit Kumar original https://www.servethehome.com/intel-e830-for-25gbe-to-200gbe-and-e610-for-10gbe-and-2-5gbe-nics-launched/

Intel has new dual port 2.5GbE and 10Gbase-T NICs with the Intel E610 series as well as 25GbE to 200GbE in the Intel E830 series

The post Intel E830 for 25GbE to 200GbE and E610 for 10GbE and 2.5GbE NICs Launched appeared first on ServeTheHome.

Инструментите за нелегитимно влияние на феномена Пеевски

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://blog.bozho.net/blog/4470

В контекста на избора на регулатори и на нестабилността на мнозинството, за пореден път става ясно, че всяко присъствие на Пеевски, явно или неявно, в упражняването на публична власт, я прави нестабилна, руши доверието в нея и я корумпира. Подготвям тази публикация отдавна, но покрай множеството събития в последните 3 месеца винаги имаше по-актуални теми. И сега има, но в предстоящите геополитически турбуленции, влиянието на Пеевски може да има решаваща отрицателна роля.

Пеевски е феномен. Така написа Доган преди година. Но не обясни какви феноменални способности има Пеевски. Ние говорим за нелегитимното влияние на Пеевски във всички власти и в политическия живот, но също рядко влизаме в конкретика, отчасти защото е много сложна за формат “12-минутно интервю” и отчасти, защото не можем да докажем, че именно така работи. Наскоро в дълго интервю загатнах за някои от механизмите, но нека опитам по-детайлно да обясня как става така, че един човек е завладял институциите, които трябва да работят като имунна система на държавата и ги използва за собствени цели. И какъв ефект има това върху държавата в дългосрочен план.

Пеевски използва няколко елемента на средата: недоизградените институции, пропуските (“дупките”) в процесите, слабохарактерните хора и неподготвените хора. Всичко написано по-долу е на база на публична информация, журналистически разследвания, слухове, анализ на данни и документи, логика и познаване на човешката природа.

1. Недоизградените институции – когато една институция е създадена само “по документи”, но никога не е работила ефективно в обществен интерес, а само е отбивала номера, тя много лесно се “пробива”.

2. Дупките в процесите – в редица закони има съзнателно или несъзнателно оставени дупки, които позволяват по-лесно овладяване и злоупотреби. Примерите са много, като станалите известни промени в Закона за хазарта, заради които Васил Божков е спестил милиони в данъци са само един пример. За мен най-важният е Наказателно-процесуалния кодекс, който оставя множество вратички както за произвол на прокуратурата без съдебен контрол, така и централизирането на важни решения като разрешения за специални разузнавателни средства (СРС) в административни ръководители (които пък се определят от Висшия съдебен съвет, където кадровото влияние се осъществява по описаните по-долу начини). Пълната “мъгла” около следствената тайна също допринася за злоупотреби (всичко е следствена тайна, когато прокуратурата реши, но всичко може да изтича контролирано към медии с цел очерняне)

3. Слабохарактерните хора са тези, които срещу малко допълнителни облаги съдействат на машината на Пеевски – от ниски до високи нива в администрация, служби, съдебна власт, политически партии. Допълнителни пари в кеш месечно, кариерно развитие, вкл. за децата, процент от обществени поръчки – за всичко това има достатъчно слухове (и разбира се, нищо доказано, защото кой трябва да го докаже – прокуратурата, която е завладяна по същия начин). В момента, в който поискаш или получиш предложение и приемеш такава оферта от някой лейтенант на Пеевски, това се документира и ставаш зависим. Продължаваш да си получаваш “бонуса”, но вече не можеш да не изпълняваш. И вълкът сит, и агнето цяло…само дето обществения интерес се губи.

4. Неподготвените хора са тези, които не търсят да участват в някоя схема, и дори отказват да участват, но не са достатъчно опитни за заеманите от тях позиции и правят грешки. Подписват нещо, което може да се използва срещу тях, или не подписват нещо и се оказва, че не са осъществили контрол. Или правят някоя глупост, която бива документирана (някоя пиянска изцепка, напр.). След това, с това прегрешение (дали съставомерно – т.е. такова, което може да се преследва от прокуратурата – или не, няма значение), тези хора се поставят в положение на зависимост. И имат избор – или съдействат на машината на Пеевски при нужда (а това може да се окаже рядко), или машината се стоварва върху тях.

Освен че разчита на горните неизбежни елементи на средата, машината на Пеевски работи (и то от 15-20 години) с най-малко следните инструменти:

1. Специални разузнавателни средства (подслушване, следене)
2. Оперативно-издирвателната дейност на КПК/КПКОНПИ
3. Предлагане на подкупи чрез подставено лице
4. Компромати от всякакво друго естество
5. Бонуси и кариерно развитие, вкл. на роднини
6. Установяване или предизвикване на грешки от неопитност
7. Скалъпване на обвинения

Специални разузнавателни средства (СРС) – най-вече подслушване, следене. Много държавни органи могат да прилагат такива, а съдилищата ги разрешават на общо основание (само Софийски градски съд има по-нисък процент на разрешени СРС-та, но и там “правилните” се разрешават, защото това се прави от административните ръководители, а не на случаен принцип – така няма нужда да си купиш всички съдии, за да си гарантираш резултат). Това включва директно прихващане на телефонни обаждания от телекома, без дори телекомът да разбере (чл. 304-310 от Закона за електронните съобщения).

Контролът на СРС-тата е в Националното бюро за контрол на СРС-та, но един важен детайл е, че Илко Желязков – санкционираният по Магнитски лейтенант на Пеевски, беше член на това бюро, за да НЕ контролира ефективно незаконосъобразното прилагане на СРС-та.

Със СРС-та, както и със сходните по идея справки за трафични данни (с кого сме говорили, през кои мобилни клетки сме минавали) се събира информация, която след това се ползва или за компроматни цели, или за досъдебни производства, или и двете. По принцип СРС-та, които не са разрешени в рамките на досъдебно производство, не са годни доказателства в съда, но има чл. 177, ал. 3 от НПК, който прави толкова широки изключения от това правило, че на практика всяко подслушване от държавен орган може да се ползва в евентуален обвинителен акт.

На практика, всеки от множеството пробити държавни органи (ДАНС, МВР, КПК и др.) могат да подслушват всеки, когото решат, да следят къде ходи, и да използват това за намерят нещо дискредитиращо. Или нещо, за което да има дело “на трупчета”, което да е “тоягата” спрямо даденото лице.

Оперативно-издирвателната дейност на антикорупционната комисия (преди КПКОНПИ, сега КПК) е друг безконтролен инструмент за профилиране, проучване и намиране на дискредитираща информация. Безконтролен, защото контролът следва да се извършва от парламента, но не се казва как – и т.нар. “дирекция по глава девета” прави каквото си иска, уж за да установи корупционни практики, а всъщност, под вещото ръководство на лейтенанти на Пеевски, превръща установените корупционни действия в компромати. Т.е. вместо да бъдат преследвани от закона, те се използват за разширяване на мрежата от зависими и подчинени хора.

За да “хванат” някого, понякога се предлага подкуп или някаква схема за отклоняване на обществен ресурс. Идва някой “посредник” и предлага. Това, което “жертвата” често не знае е, че посредникът всъщност документира всичко. Дали законно (чрез СРС), дали не, е детайл. Мартин-нотариуса, както стана ясно на база на множество въпроси, които с колеги задавахме към институциите след убийството му, е бил свидетел по множество дела срещу магистрати. Неофициалната информация е, че в качеството на свидетел е бил “закачан” със СРС-та, за да записва магистратите, на които предлага “сделките” – как да решават дела, какви обвинения да повдигат или не повдигат и т.н. Същата схема има и с представители на фирми, които предлагат подкупи за обществени поръчки. И ако имаш глупостта да приемеш, капанът щраква.

За тези, които са едновременно внимателни да не подписват незаконосъобразни неща, ощетяващи обществения интерес, и не се поддават на изкушения, идва третия вариант – скалъпване. Всеки, който е бил на висока позиция, е трябвало да взема стотици решения. От всяко нещо (срещу “една бутилка уиски”, както казва Пеевски за Петьо-еврото), може да се скалъпи нещо, което е годно за образуване на досъдебно производство и тормоз. Примери много, като напр. ремонта на климатици по времето на Христо Иванов като министър, самолетните билети по времето на Даниел Митов и Христо Ангеличин в МВнР, (за което имаха обвинения, които се разпаднаха в съда), или нелепите обвинения срещу мен и Кирил, че сме заплашвали министъра на електронното управление за някакви несъществуващи милиони или че съм давал някакви флашки.

Компроматите и висящите досъдебни производства (т.нар. “папки” и “дела на трупчета”) са двете страни на една монета. Това, което е съвсем негодно за наказателно-процесуални цели се ползва като “позорящо обстоятелство”. Делата на трупчета пък се случват по много начини – безкрайно удължаване на етапа на разследване без привлечен обвиняем (за да се каже на жертвата – “изпълнявай, иначе от свидетел ще се превърнеш в обвиняем”), спиране на производството (има различни хипотези), прекратяване, но с фабрикуване на основания за повторно “отваряне” и др. Все подходи, които са легитимни при добросъвестност на прокуратурата, за да може да си свърши работата, но позволяващи злоупотреби.

Компроматите, събрани чрез СРС или чрез частни агенции за преследване и документиране, се трупат. От различни хора – Пеевски, Нотариуса, Петьо-еврото, Трактора. Двама от четиримата по-горе бяха убити, а третият е в неизвестност. Смята се, че Пеевски е “придобил” компроматните им банки. С мой въпрос до МВР опитвам да събера информация дали нахлуването по неотложност в офиси на покойния Алексей Петров, Пеевски чрез Калин Стоянов не е опитал (и успял) да се добере до компроматите, събирани от Алексей Петров, каквито твърдения има. Потвърждение, разбира се, няма, но действия по неотложност за разследване на убийство 6 месеца по-рано е най-малкото странно.

Между другото, Наказателният кодекс не включва състав на престъпление за складиране на компромати и използването им за принуждаване на длъжностни лица да извършат или да не извършат нещо. Може би е време да се криминализира и това (в момента е използването на позорящи обстоятелства е криминализирано само в контекста на престъпления срещу собствеността).

Сигурно пропускам нещо извън СРС-та, подкупи, компромати, бонуси, кариерно развитие, вкл. на роднини. Но всичко това се е случвало, с твърдяното активно участие на Пеевски, в последните 15-20 години. Всеки от тези механизми е прилаган спрямо все по-широк кръг хора – магистрати, служители в службите, политици, министри, държавни служители. И с всеки следващ “прихванат” е ставало по-лесно този кръг да се разширява още и още.

Всеки прихванат административен ръководител е разрешавал СРС-та на все по-широк кръг хора, всеки прихванат министър е осигурявал поръчки “на когото трябва”, всеки прихванат магистрат е бил в готовност да бъде посочен за член на Висшия съдебен съвет, където да върши каквото му се нареди, всеки прихванат прокурор е бил готов да повдигне обвинение по команда, всеки прихванат политик е бил готов да предложи и гласува законови промени, в които да се отворят още и още вратички.

Разбира се, най-важните “прихванати” са главните прокурори, административните ръководители на важните съдилища, в т.ч. Върховния административен съд, шефовете на службите, висшестоящи политици. Чрез тях задвижването на машината е най-ефективно.

Една спирала надолу, в резултат на която в момента всичко е завладяно, всеки мисли, че другия е “държан с нещо”, за всеки има някаква история, полу-правдоподобна.

Анализирайки всички тези неща, сме подготвили изменения в множество закони, с които да се премахнат част от тези инструменти. Но тяхното приемане няма да заличи армията на Пеевски, неговата машина от удобни, послушни, прихванати, на всички етажи, във всяка власт.

С няколко закона ще го “погалим”, с редовно управление с ясно поставена цел можеше да бъде ограничено това влияние, но нямаше как да бъде елиминирано толкова бързо. Това е и отговорът на въпроса “защо като бяхте на власт не го спряхте” – защото за 2 пъти по 8 месеца е практически невъзможно разбиването на тази машина, градена 20 години, особено когато на практика нямаш мнозинство в парламента.

Ако в този парламент беше формирано управление, което да остави Пеевски в реална опозиция, част от неговото влияние щеше отслабне – защото покрай зависимите хора, има и такива, които се снишават, защото знаят, че той реално е на власт. Затова символни неща като декларацията ни и санитарния кордон са важни. Но не може да има илюзии, че дори да приложим всички мерки, и то както трябва, влиянието му ще се изпари.

Настоящото управление не е такова – от предложеното от нас споразумение отпадна както изричното споменаване на Пеевски, така и всички мерки насочени срещу механизмите на влияние. Още повече, че от предложенията за регулаторите на мнозинството, и от някои назначения в изпълнителната власт, става напълно ясно, че машината няма да бъде разградена от това управление.

Пеевски е брокер на реална власт, който, чрез незаконни средства, осигурява на всеки каквото му трябва, но при едно условие (като в Приказка за стълбата) – взема ти по нещо, най-вече съвестта. И ставаш част от машината, поредното зомби в зомби-апокалипсиса, който разгражда българската държавност.

Заради тактическите си ползи, Пеевски държи цялата политическа система в пълен блокаж. Не може да позволи да има редовно правителство срещу него, а когато евентуално има такова, прави всичко възможно да го свали. А поради горните проблеми, няма как управлението да решава дългосрочни проблеми, защото в дъното им винаги стои някоя корупционна схема, от която някой точи нещо. И Пеевски трябва да реши дали спира кранчето в името на обществения интерес. “Добрият” скрит диктатор, който спира дерибеите в полза на обикновения човек… но само ако реши, че поредната пионка може да бъде смачкана.

И за съжаление виждаме, че когато има цялата изпълнителна власт (през кабинета Главчев), проблемите не се решават. Т.е. илюзия е, че ако си затворим едното око, ще може да бъде свършено нещо дългосрочно в обществения интерес. Пеевски е феноменално ефективен само в едно – да разширява нелегитимното си влияние. Но всичко, което реално управлява, се разпада.

Всичко това е феноменално, но не може да продължава още дълго. Видимо е, че общественото настроение създава още и още “борци с мафията”, които влизат в парламента, който обаче не може да формира управление, защото във всяко потенциално мнозинство има поне по едно “прокси на Пеевски”.

Не е ясно, обаче, как това може да бъде разградено. Идването на “нов спасител” ще се сблъска със същата завладяна държава. А в процеса на пълния си разпад, държавата става лесна плячка и за чужди влияния.

Не можем да чакаме и помощ отвън – “посолствата” са предимно безсилни (някои – с пълно неразбиране за мащаба и системните рискове, които създава машината на Пеевски). Европа едва отлепи с европрокуратурата, но резултати няма, вкл. заради саботаж от пробитите местни институции. Всякакви доклади, класации, анализи само констатират, без да дават решения. И това е разбираемо – решенията трябва да ни намерим ние тук, а не да ги чакаме отвън.

И тук въпросът е Пеевски може ли да издържи под собствената си тежест. Явно да, защото става по-силен. И може ли държавата да издържи, преди да се “счупи”. И ако не, може ли той да губи власт плавно и по малко, или това е оксиморон.

Възможно ли е чрез пълното преосноваване и реподбор на цели системи (прокуратура, служби) да се постигне нещо положително, или ще стане както често става в такива случаи – няколко месеца по-късно се връщат същите хора, със същите зависимости и същите схеми.

Това е един от основните политически въпроси пред страната в последните 2 години. И той не изглежда да има лесно политическо решение, защото по същността си е криминален. В същото време, докато опитваме да решим този централен въпрос, стотици проблеми чакат своите решения, а геополитическата ориентация на страната става все по-несигурна. Дори дилемата “Пеевски или Русия” е фалшива, вкл. защото в близкото минало Пеевски беше Русия, а руското влияние прониква през пробойните, оставени от неговото вероломно нахлуване в институциите. А в последно гласуваната декларация за Украйна, “Ново начало” не подкрепи текста, който предложихме за обявяването на Русия за агресор..

Има две основни възможни политически развития оттук нататък. Да стане премиер, както многократно сам е заявявал, изтисквайки цялата политическа легитимност от тези, които ще го подкрепят. Или да се оттегли, изгаряйки компроматните си банки и списъците със зависими хора. Второто е твърде пожелателно. Първото ще е кулминацията на неспособността на политическата класа и държавните органи да функционират.

Материалът Инструментите за нелегитимно влияние на феномена Пеевски е публикуван за пръв път на БЛОГодаря.

The collective thoughts of the interwebz