After a week, what angers me most about nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqn702fwc8fhzsuff296qxsywjpxw2g84x5j7dahk9utjgthage7pq3t3zdw (nprofile…3zdw)'s election decisions is that it's a betrayal of OSI's commitment to the members: if you join, you can advise the board on who to appoint through an election. But in this case that didn't happen, the board decided specifically to not count some of the advisory votes after they were made. Their claim is that they had to exclude newly ineligible candidates before running the count.
The members did everything right. They paid their dues. They followed the voting procedure. But after the board asked for the advice, they decided they'd only look at some of it. That's just insulting to the membership for what is an advisory vote.
I know people on the board. The ones I know are good people. That makes this whole situation more baffling and hurtful.
I don't want to think this was done for unstated reasons but at the same time, the decision to just exclude the votes of members is so hard to explain. What are we supposed to think?
Eric Schultz
npub16n…vdueg
2025-03-28 04:21:40 UTC
Author Public Key
npub16n4fm8u8ua4fuw8pjjlpmsl40dm0nmmqylarrkp20ylee7uemrkqwvduegSeen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2025-03-28 04:21:40 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "be168f46ba4936b3704917f0b75e6102272b459b2f838fc1a4c2e12df36dfd40",
"pubkey": "d4ea9d9f87e76a9e38e194be1dc3f57b76f9ef6027fa31d82a793f9cfb99d8ec",
"created_at": 1743135700,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"9f9ea4bb074dc50e252a2e806811d2099ca41ea6a4bcdedec5e2e485dfa8cf82",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"9a319c452c8cf90d2ce1ffb5121bbe020a2fa05d907249dd702c60538aa62607",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.treehouse.systems/users/wwahammy/statuses/114238141245129000",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "After a week, what angers me most about nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqn702fwc8fhzsuff296qxsywjpxw2g84x5j7dahk9utjgthage7pq3t3zdw's election decisions is that it's a betrayal of OSI's commitment to the members: if you join, you can advise the board on who to appoint through an election. But in this case that didn't happen, the board decided specifically to not count some of the advisory votes after they were made. Their claim is that they had to exclude newly ineligible candidates before running the count.\n\nThe members did everything right. They paid their dues. They followed the voting procedure. But after the board asked for the advice, they decided they'd only look at some of it. That's just insulting to the membership for what is an advisory vote.\n\nI know people on the board. The ones I know are good people. That makes this whole situation more baffling and hurtful.\n\nI don't want to think this was done for unstated reasons but at the same time, the decision to just exclude the votes of members is so hard to explain. What are we supposed to think?",
"sig": "2d60dfe680ff2977ef181295e223ac3251f560af41ea1cb2876d75fb48bd9a1090d55a4045b1f0b46008cef4a0fdaa6dd0e5c46a687ed3ae7b5c13ea2ece354e"
}