Stefano Maffulli
@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.`
pchestek
@richardfontana This is on you. You knew you were not willing to meet the eligibility requirements but did not withdraw as a candidate before the elections opened. OSI didn't know and didn't anticipate that someone would do that; it had never happened that a candidate ran but then refused to meet the requirements. OSI then had to ensure that anyone who might be seated was willing to serve. Lesson learned; in the future the docs will be signed before someone can run @ed @kevin @jwildeboer
mjw
Isn't that a little backwards @pchestek ? @richardfontana and @bkuhn were very open and public they ran on a platform to modernize the board agreement and that they believed OSI directors should be allowed to use FOSS for Board activities. Then when the vote is over and they do exactly as promised they get excluded for that? @kevin @jwildeboer
Richard Fontana
@ed @kevin @jwildeboer You say we excluded ourselves, but if so the exclusion took place *after* the vote and you are choosing not to release the full election results
Aaron Wolf
This sort of comment is inappropriate for a respectable democratic process. If a candidate gets all the way to being listed on the ballots, voting takes place, and then they are disqualified for some reason, the only way to go forward with integrity includes still releasing the vote totals.
This is not merely about candidates. The last minute removals *and* not releasing the vote totals is disrespectful disenfranchising of the VOTERS.
Josh Triplett
Richard Fontana
@pchestek @ed @kevin @jwildeboer No, when the voting started I was pretty sure I was going to ultimately sign the existing board agreement if I won the STV election and was offered a seat by the OSI. I only decided not to sign the existing board agreement (and offer an addendum) *after* the OSI suddenly required all candidates to sign the agreement *after* everyone had voted
Richard Fontana
@ed @kevin @jwildeboer There was no board "code of conduct" at issue. There was a board member agreement that (unexpectedly) all candidates were expected to sign after voting already completed, which agreement was one target of the reform platform advanced by me and @bkuhn
Bradley M. Kuhn
I wish OSI's @ed would stop lying about 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 a lie.
@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.
Bradley M. Kuhn
Accusing someone rejecting a Code of Conduct is sometimes career-ending for the accused. One should only make such accusations w/ great care & certainty.
I'm terrified now: #OpenSource Initiative's @ed (Executive Director), Stefano Maffulli, so-accused me & @richardfontana earlier today. This accusation is false.
I request a public apology from Stefano personally & @osi organizationally.
(Upthread clarifies facts Maffulli twisted.)
Alfred M. Szmidt
@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
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:
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.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.