Open Source Initiative: AI Debate Roils Board Elections? (thenewstack.io) 11
The Open Source Initiative's Board of Directors election "has become embroiled in controversy..." writes Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at The New Stack.
"The real issue is the community's opposition to the open source AI definition (OSAID), which the organization released last October," he adds — but "the election process has been criticized because the OSI has refused to accept the candidacy of Debian developer Luke Faraone, citing a missed application deadline." Faraone claims they submitted their application around 9 p.m. PST on Feb. 17, while the OSI maintains the deadline was 11:59 p.m. UTC (3:59 p.m. PST) on the same day.
The dispute has raised a firestorm about the clarity of communication regarding deadlines and time zones. Critics argue that the deadline's time zone was not clearly specified on the OSI's public-facing website. Tracy Hinds, chair of OSI, acknowledged this oversight but stated that full members received multiple emails with the correct time zone information. "Everyone who is qualified to run for elections (full members of OSI) received emails with the time zone," wrote Hinds, in an email to The New Stack. "The public-facing web page did not have the time zone, and we've now updated it for clarity going forward.
"Extending the deadline would be unfair to the other candidates...."
On LinkedIn, Bruce Perens, one of the OSI's founders wrote, "Open Source Initiative invents rule at the last minute to deny opposition candidate's nomination for their board election."
There are three board sets up for election in March, the article points out. "Two well-known figures in the open source world — Richard Fontana, Red Hat's principal commercial counsel and a former OSI board member, and [Bradley] Kuhn, policy fellow and hacker-in-residence at the Software Freedom Conservancy — are running on a joint platform of repealing the open source AI definition."
In a blog post Faraone promised a similar platform (also supporting a repeal of the definition) — had their candidacy not been rejected.
"The real issue is the community's opposition to the open source AI definition (OSAID), which the organization released last October," he adds — but "the election process has been criticized because the OSI has refused to accept the candidacy of Debian developer Luke Faraone, citing a missed application deadline." Faraone claims they submitted their application around 9 p.m. PST on Feb. 17, while the OSI maintains the deadline was 11:59 p.m. UTC (3:59 p.m. PST) on the same day.
The dispute has raised a firestorm about the clarity of communication regarding deadlines and time zones. Critics argue that the deadline's time zone was not clearly specified on the OSI's public-facing website. Tracy Hinds, chair of OSI, acknowledged this oversight but stated that full members received multiple emails with the correct time zone information. "Everyone who is qualified to run for elections (full members of OSI) received emails with the time zone," wrote Hinds, in an email to The New Stack. "The public-facing web page did not have the time zone, and we've now updated it for clarity going forward.
"Extending the deadline would be unfair to the other candidates...."
On LinkedIn, Bruce Perens, one of the OSI's founders wrote, "Open Source Initiative invents rule at the last minute to deny opposition candidate's nomination for their board election."
There are three board sets up for election in March, the article points out. "Two well-known figures in the open source world — Richard Fontana, Red Hat's principal commercial counsel and a former OSI board member, and [Bradley] Kuhn, policy fellow and hacker-in-residence at the Software Freedom Conservancy — are running on a joint platform of repealing the open source AI definition."
In a blog post Faraone promised a similar platform (also supporting a repeal of the definition) — had their candidacy not been rejected.
Unfair? (Score:3)
Not having the time zone included causes a maximum error of 23 hrs, how is that in any significant way unfair?
Re:Unfair? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it's clear they just didn't want him as a candidate. If they hadn't been biased against him, any reasonable person would have allowed the application in.
Re: (Score:3)
Reasonableness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The chosen candidates would have to compete against someone they might lose to. That would be dreadfully unfair. /s
More to the point, it would provide 3 potential board members who would vote on the Open Source Artificial Intelligence Definition (OSAID) issue in a way that the current board does not want. That is enough to change policy.
They are restricting potential candidates to ensure that no matter who wins the elections, the board will still be controlled by the same people.
Snoozing/Losing (Score:3, Insightful)
Anywhere on earth (Score:2)
The right thing (Score:3)
I have no idea who these people are, or what the purpose of this initiative is, but if you put out an incorrect or unclear communication, you need to accommodate it. IE if you did not specify a time zone, then the deadline needs to be backed up to accommodate all time zones - which means backing it up exactly 24 hours UTC.
You cannot assume that additional information put out there was consumed by every person of interest.
lfaraone - small correction (Score:2)
As per the article referenced, Luke identifies as they/them. Their blog rather than his blog preferred.
Re: (Score:2)