2 hrs after voting closed, candidates received email from
#OpenSource Initiative Elections Team — it asks us to sign Board
Agreement (w/ DocuSign) by WED 2025-03-19 17:00 UTC. — “For your name to be considered by the
board as we compute & review the outcomes of… polls”.

*But*, #OSI said at orientation that only seated Directors, not candidates, must sign this agreement.

Can anyone explain why OSI
now asks both winning & losing candidates to sign this urgently? 🤔

https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/03/17/sign-board-agreement-to-be-considered.html

@bkuhn perhaps they want to make sure you will not refuse to sign if elected. If that's the issue it speaks volumes about the transparency.

@bkuhn This is super messed up! Unrelated: How do you feel about docusign?

@purpleidea re: docusign

Over my work at @conservancy, we are actually at the end of a protracted discussion w/ our new bank about our refusal to use docusign to initiate new accounts.

Turns out, if you're patient and stay steadfast to your principles, they'll let you get document signatures notarized by a Notary Public, or go into a branch.

Some say we should give up on #OpenSource solutions & just use Docusign & Google workspace. I disagree & say we should demand #FOSS alternatives instead.

@rsalz

I obviously considered that possibility, which of course assumes they already know I won, but I don't know that to be the case.

We truly don't know for sure why #OpenSource Initiative is behaving so strangely. As you say, that's a transparency problem.

Interestingly, if @richardfontana & I *were* to sign Board agreement as written w/ the “code of silence” , if we found out what really happened to cause these strange things, we'd be enjoined forever from disclosing what happened.

@bkuhn seems a sensible change to ensure those that stand are eligible. I know other OSS boards that do same (I used to run their elections)

@rachel
I'd not necessarily object if they changed the rule before election began & required all candidates to sign as part of orientation.

*But* #OSI told us during orientation that we'd sign agreement *if elected*; that changed only after voting closed.

Please do note also that #OpenSource Initiative was aware that this very issue would be part of my & @richardfontana 's platform before the election started …
https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#item-3-remove-code-of-silence-from-board-member-agreement

…Does any of that change your analysis in this case?

@bkuhn @richardfontana no, not really. Collective Responsibility, the phrase generally used for board speaking with one voice outside of the boardroom, is a hugely adopted policy in effective boards.
Plenty of OSS projects use Google Docs for communications, the Drupal Association included.
If you have a problem with signing this, why are you standing? You won’t be able to contribute as a director and that just cost the org even more to rerun election. Seems a bit daft.

@rachel @bkuhn The platform doesn't oppose the use of Google Docs. (I use Google Docs myself sometimes.) It says that an OSI board director should be accommodated if they object to using non-open-source software. I see this proposal as pretty specific to the OSI as a pro-open-source advocacy organization.

@richardfontana @rachel

Precisely so. #OpenSource Initiative Directors & staff should be accommodated if they have a moral/ethical objection to using non-FOSS for their work. Similar situations:

Staff/Directors of an animal rights nonprofit should not be required to eat meat at official events if they have a moral/ethical objection.

Staff/Directors of environmental nonprofit should be accommodated if they insist on using paper with 100% post-consumer content rather than unrecycled paper.

@bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel OSI has always been about "pragmatism" (see the recent OSAID for the latest example) rather than strong core values; that's what set Open Source apart from Free Software, after all.

(Or maybe it should be said that "pragmatism" *is* one of their core values, more so than "open source")

So, I sympathize, believe/wish you were on the board to strengthen it, but I can't say I'm surprised at all. 💔

@larsmb @bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel

🤔 Forcing its Directors to use proprietary software doesn't actually sound very pragmatic to me....

@downey @bkuhn @richardfontana @rachel It is, in the sense that the proprietary software is just "pragmatically" the better / industry standard choice.

Just like OSAID pragmatically doesn't require *checks notes* the actual sources for the models.

Similar to what the key difference between Free and Open Source is that started it all: being more pragmatic wrt industry demands.

It is at least consistent.