RE: Call for OSM Board Nominations - Feb 7, 2014

[AmyStephen]

I was around when Jacques was appointed. There was no foul play. He was very enthusiastic about helping with Joomla, as were many, and he was asked to serve. That first group that he was a part of did a excellent job turning around openness in OSM and involving the broader community.

As far as the nominees being made public, there is a good reason for not doing so. It can reflect poorly on someone who wasn't selected or it can call into question their "devotion" to the project if they choose not to be involved.

I have been nominated in the past a few times but I have not served on the board. I appreciate my privacy was respected. Unless I am asked and I accept the role, it's a private matter. Once serving, then it's public.

This one part of the process could change, but if it does, I hope that privacy be respected if the nominee doesn't want their name shared.

Cindy - the process may not be perfect, and it's not. But it is moving towards more and more inclusiveness. Right now, I think they are at the point they are trying to build a permanent membership. In the end, that'll bring the representation I think you are looking for. I am comfortable, personally, with how it operates and where it's leading.

[JacquesR]

Why on earth is it that are there good candidates, whom many have expressed support for, being prevented from serving on the OSM Board right now?

You are now making things up. There was an open call for nominations. That closed afaik on Friday. When you hurl such accusations around the burden of proof is on you.

Your reply to me is emotionally charged, and at 4am in the morning I don't wish to enter into a drawn-out debate with you. I responded here, because negative remarks were being made, that I knew were not true, and I stated the current situation. You may have missed that I'm no longer a board director.

As you are well aware, there's a Governance Working group that's supposed to be looking at the type of questions you are asking.

I'll leave it to the current directors to debate you on your vision for how things should work.

Jacques

[montano]

@Amy
We don't have to agree. You are entitled to your view and I'm entitled to mine.

forum.png

I try not to get mixed up in the fray, I don't like confrontation and quite frankly, I have better things to do. What I really dislike is someone pissing down my back and telling me it is raining.

Just because I don't get up on my soapbox on a regular basis doesn't mean I'm not paying attention to what is going on around here. Don't forget, I was here before anyone who has posted on this thread. I was here before everyone on the board. I did my homework. I know who's who.

None of what I say is an attempt to get on the board. I do not want it. What I do want is to have the community I serve to be represented by the members of the OSM board. Case in point, this new 2014 board will decide, ALONE, if the license will change from GPL to LGPL. If that board is made of of 3PDs we, The Community, have a serious problem.

[JacquesR]

Am I, Jacques? Wasn't it Brad Baker who got you on the board? You've been a part of this forum only since May 2009 and were appointed to the board in February of 2010. At the time you had less than 10 forum posts, were not a member of any Working Group and had contributed no code.

You again pick an example that does not prove your story.

I believe it was Andrew Eddie who nominated me. I knew Brad only from a forum section that I was involved in. In your own example you say that I was only a short time on the forum, so from were was I friends with Brad? Your cronysim accusation falls flat. (and is insulting)

Who on the board will you pick next to try and prove your argument?

Jacques

[MarijkeS]

@Marikje - my posts are really not about you other than to point out the length of your term has been over the two year limit that was post on the blog in November 2010. You were a member of the board and must have had a part in that decision. Four of the members appointed in 2010 served over the two year limit. I'm not discounting the work you or anyone else has done. This is a community of contributors, and many people want to serve but cannot because the Class of 2010 took a long time to give up their seats.

Sorry but I need to correct you again. The post is of November 2010, I was just elected.
In the meantime bylaws have been changed, it was publically announced and voted on, so no secrets here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... TUiljR9CO4

The referred bylaws section is now under 4.2

I know your posts are not about me, but I like to have things correctly be displayed.

[montano]

Sorry but I need to correct you again. The post is of November 2010, I was just elected.
In the meantime bylaws have been changed, it was publically announced and voted on, so no secrets here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... TUiljR9CO4

The referred bylaws section is now under 4.2

I know your posts are not about me, but I like to have things correctly be displayed.

Please feel free to correct me. If I'm wrong I'll happily (well, maybe not sooo happily) admit it.
Here's the timeline.

6 members come on in February 2010, 5 more in October 2010. The 2-year term post goes up in November 2010. In November of 2012 there is a vote about term limits at the link you provided. This vote happened AFTER everyone had already served two years.

The bylaws were revised very quickly in March 2013 to coincide with the change in non-profit status from Type B to Type C. They were changed again in November of 2014.

[NivF007]

Jacques,

C'mon. You can do better than to dodge the questions.

Straight answers please. None of this 'you don't have your facts straight' (are you suggesting nominees have not been turned down? Exactly 'what' facts don't I have straight?) - and please, let's focus on the questions asked without being patronizing.

If you're feeling emotional, you're a grown man and need to learn how to deal with it - I'm certainly not being 'emotional' as you purport - apparently in an attempt to sidestep the question, so please let's not spiral into such absurdities.

Why exactly are nominees for OSM being kept secretive?

I'd appreciate direct answers.

Let's have some integrity in the responses of OSM Directors with respect to these questions.

Best,

N

[AmyStephen]

Niv - I've answered your question. Why ignore my answer? You are just bullying people and making stuff up. I don't like the title of this video, but I would encourage you to watch it and reflect on these insinuations and accusations you make of volunteers in this project. It's extremely wrong. http://www.[youtube].com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM

[NivF007]

Amy,

1) Nobody is being 'bullied.' It is not 'bullying' to ask for a 'straight answer.'

2) Exactly what 'stuff' do you purport I'm making up?

I'd like straight answers, please, thank you kindly...etc.

Let's have full transparency for OSM, including which nominees who have consented are being put forward, their platforms available, and let's see how the incumbent directors vote.

There is nothing that should prevent this from happening.

Please no more side-stepping, name calling and poisonous videos. Let's stick to the issues.

N

[QBParis]

My posts are not an attempt to name and shame. My feeling is that serving on the board is a thankless job and my hat's off to those who have contributed. That said, the process has been secretive and closed and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the community which the board is supposed to serve.

To illustrate my "friends" comment I give you this information:
Alice, Paul and Dianne were all leaders at JCM. Alice and Dianne are friends in real life from way back to Paris days. All three are appointed to the board in the Fall of 2010. Coincidence? I'd hazard a guess Ryan was the friend who held the door open. Just a guess.

Cindy, I got involved with Joomla in May 2010 with the Joomla Community Magazine. I was nominated to OSM in October 2010 by someone on CLT. I didn't know Ryan back then, and I had barely been involved in Joomla or its politics. Maybe what I brought was a fresh voice, and unvarnished view of things... I was happy to take on the responsibilities of the position and I gave a lot of my time over the three years that I served, sometimes to the detriment of my professional income.

When there are calls for nominations to OSM, it is open, it is published and it is completely fair and unbiased. I have been involved in several rounds of nomination discussions and I can tell you that the time, passion and dedication that each OSM member put into the process was, in a word, dedicated. There was no "friend" favoritism... it was based on the needs of the board, the positions available, and the experience the nominee could bring to the board. There were some tough decisions made. To say that anyone on OSM takes that process lightly is, to me, an insult. I'm sorry if you personally feel slighted, looked-over, or left out. The job of OSM during the nomination process is to fill the positions with people who will be the best they can be and who will bring the most they can to the position.

[AmyStephen]

Niv - the video is very good, please watch it.

Your questions have been answered. If you want the board to present the names of nominees (and it sounds like you want that), like I said earlier, ask for that. The board can consider the action, I would just ask that they also consider the need for privacy is the individual doesn't want their name released.

Other than that, there has been nothing specific that I see. There is a community group working on these issues. Why not get involved with that group?

Please - there are ways to be constructive and helpful and then ways that are time consuming and discouraging. The video is good food for thought. I've watched it many times as I've learned to adapt my own behavior.

Thanks.

[montano]

@Amy, you may have answered a question from your view, but you have not served on the Board or COC. It is only your opinion. Niv's question was directed at a board member who could answer with some authority.

The only accusations I've seen so far in this thread are you calling Niv a bully. I'm sure there are a lot of things people will take as insinuations, but that's all in how an individual interprets what was written.

Niv has questions, I have questions. Are we not entitled to answers?

We're all adults here and can defend ourselves. Nobody needs you to mediate or champion. It is a debate.

I'm sorry if you personally feel slighted, looked-over, or left out. The job of OSM during the nomination process is to fill the positions with people who will be the best they can be and who will bring the most they can to the position.

I don't feel slighted, looked-over, or left out. In the nearly nine years I've been involved with Joomla I've been quite happy to contribute where I could when I could. I have only ONCE thrown my name into the ring for a position on the board and that was only after YOU told me that you nominated me and I'd been rejected.

You're not the first person to tell me that and it grated my nerves that I kept getting rejected for something I never asked for or wanted. The whole process seemed fishy to me and that is when I asked for nominations. I wanted a public rejection. I wanted it on paper.

[AmyStephen]

Cindy - telling someone that they are "dodging questions' or "keeping things secretive" is bullying. There were other comments, but I have no interest in keeping a laundry list of the bad things said.

And no, we aren't entitled to question the character of those who are volunteering, accuse them of self interest or nominating friends. People aren't volunteering for this. We are entitled to the copy of Joomla we downloaded. Beyond that, nothing. No one likes that answer, but it is the answer.

No one needs me to mediate or champion and it's not a debate. It's nonsense.

The ironic thing is OSM is working towards the things you both seem to want, more community involvement, governance. They have invited us to participate with a group focused in that area -- so why not do so?

OK. Again, I've been pleased with the progress of the board. Maybe it could have gone faster? But if I had concerned, I'd join the community group looking at it. ;-)

Later.

[QBParis]

Cindy - I never nominated you. I never told you that I did. The year you threw your hat into the ring was the year that you were embarking on your around the world tour. I didn't feel that you would have the time to put into the project with all that you were doing and I never nominated you. I'm sorry if you thought that I had.

[NivF007]

@ QBParis

There were some tough decisions made.

By exactly whom? Not by the OSM community. That's the issue here.

The problem is that a small group of volunteers (yes we are all grateful for their help) have all the control - that control should be put in the hands of the contributors.

---

@ Amy

they also consider the need for privacy is the individual doesn't want their name released.

If somebody wants to serve as a director (i.e. a nominee has consented) then obviously they are aware that if elected and serving, their name is going to be made public.

Please - there are ways to be constructive and helpful

Absolutely. Like asking the pertinent questions and getting straight answers.

The video is good food for thought.

Thanks - next time I need 'food for thought videos' I know exactly who to hit up.

Amy - the point here is that

a) Elections for Directors to OSM are controlled by handful of incumbent directors and not the community at large; and

b) Despite vacancies and the fact that a nominee had support from members of the community - that nominee has been repeatedly (as I understand) shut out.

Exactly who is voting to shut out that nominee, despite support for that nominee, and why?

--

So let's get some transparency and straight answers.

N

PS

Now you have accused me of bullying, send me 'poisonous' videos - even accused me of 'making stuff up' - and now, I guess implicitly, being 'time consuming and discouraging' if I understand your message correctly - somewhere in there you suggest my question have been answered too.

Can we skip that please?

Why is a nominee who has strong support from the community being shut out of a directorship position?

Let's stick to finding out the answers that matter.

[montano]

Dianne, I have the chat record on Facebook. And yes, that year was the year I was leaving to travel. Like I said, it was an exercise.

@Amy, to call Niv a bully implies that he has a superior position over Jacques. We might be guilty of haranguing, but not bullying.

bully.png

[MarijkeS]

6 members come on in February 2010

To be precise, 6 were elected, 1 was re-elected
http://opensourcematters.org/news/157-r ... tions.html

5 more in October 2010.

Not correct, the October elections were split into two parts, in the first part there were 3 directors added and announced was a second part to come with 2-4 additional.
http://community.joomla.org/blogs/commu ... art-1.html
In part two additional there were 4 members added
http://community.joomla.org/blogs/commu ... art-2.html

So that makes 13 new people added in 2010 total.

The 2-year term post goes up in November 2010.

Correct, link is already in previous post. Term limits mean it doesn't mean you can't be re-elected but your term ends and you can ask for renewal, which already happened before as you can read above.

In November of 2012 there is a vote about term limits at the link you provided.

Yes, and read on it states clearly

Directors will be elected according to the procedure described in Article IV. Each Director's term will last for the term specified in her or his election or, if no such term is specified, for one year. This term may be renewed.

Pay attention to the last sentence.

This vote happened AFTER everyone had already served two years.

Of the 13 members that were elected in 2010 3 members requested renewal in february and was granted by the COC
http://opensourcematters.org/news/187-b ... -2012.html
Alice Grevet and Paul Orwig were elected in an Officer role, as the post mentions for one year:
http://opensourcematters.org/news/188-o ... -2012.html
Later that year 2 more members of the class of 2010 are requesting renewal and approved by the COC
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... O4cUyjwZZ8
No secrets here, voting was made public and COC was asked for approval, the board minutes also reflect this.

So that makes only 5 renewals and 2 elected in an officer role, of the 13.
Additional there were two elections, one in April and one in October, where 7 new members were chosen.

The bylaws were revised very quickly in March 2013 to coincide with the change in non-profit status from Type B to Type C.

The bylaws changes of March did not had anything to do with the Type B to C changes, those changes happened already before I was serving on the board. The changes of March 2013 were dealing with dissolving the COC.
http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... e-coc.html

They were changed again in November of 2014.

They were changed again in November 2013 (i take it this is a typo?) to deal with the membership requirement according to our typ of organization. They also deal with a new way of oversight after the COC was dissolved. They have been announced to be short term, there are going to be additional changes and the membership part will be thoroughly discussed and considered in the best way.

http://opensourcematters.org/news/214-s ... ylaws.html

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but you still didn't answer the questions I asked before.

[QBParis]

@Niv, I agree with you that if the nominees are okay with having their names published as a nominee, let's do it. It takes the (what you are intimating) "behind closed doors" process into the open.

#justsaying... Post a photo/avatar so we can see your face. ;-)

[montano]

Is it condescending in here or is it just me?

[JacquesR]

Niv, I do not appreciate the tone of your remarks towards me.

I've observed you posting more then 50 lengthy posts in a single discussion, so I really have no wish to get into a debate with you (on any topic).

As I mentioned to you before, I am not a Director. As a former Director, I responded to wrong information being posted here.

Whatever other questions you have about future OSM elections, you can ask of the Directors who are still on the board.

If you keep on making the accusation that someone is being blocked from becoming a Director, then the onus remains on you to provide the proof or to stop your accusations.

Cindy, it sounds like you have personal issues about not getting elected. (you state as much)
You have received numerous replies here from myself and Marijke, to what you posted. Mostly showing that your accusation were not based of fact.

I think Amy also explained nicely why the preference in the past have been to keep nominations private.
(from a nominee's perspective) Nothing has ever stopped a nominee from making public their own nomination and non-election.

Jacques

[NivF007]

@QBParis

Post a photo/avatar so we can see your face. ;-)

I would but I'm way too good looking and nobody will be able to focus on the conversation.

Okay - back to the point - let's try and clear up some confusion.

If you look at the first post, I asked if nominees names were being made public.

If you look at Paul's response in the second post, he says

3. Publishing the names of new director nominees has not been a step in OSM's election process during the 3+ years that I have served.

@ MarijkeS (thank you for all the helpful thorough info btw!!!)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... O4cUyjwZZ8
No secrets here, voting was made public and COC was asked for approval, the board minutes also reflect this.

[emphasis mine]

But let's be clear that this applies to only to incumbent Directors seeking renewal.

Unless Paul's response (quoted above) is not correct (some clarification would be in order if that's the case).

I think the bottom line is that Joomla! and OSM have matured to the point were it should be the contributors and stakeholders in the community at large who decide who represents their interests.

In addition to the concerns, or at least the appearance of an 'opaque closed shop,' I cannot fathom that, for example, long time members and contributors from CLT and PLT, as well as other working groups, do not have 'vote' in these matters.

Again @ QBParis

@Niv, I agree with you that if the nominees are okay with having their names published as a nominee, let's do it. It takes the (what you are intimating) "behind closed doors" process into the open.

Yes - that is what I'm 'intimating' and thank you for your support on that!

Transparency is the best policy!!!

N

PS

@ Cindy

it condescending in here or is it just me?

Ha! Try growing up with yiddish people. Condescending is a cherished sport.

[NivF007]

@ Jacques

I've observed you posting more then 50 lengthy posts in a single discussion, so I really have no wish to get into a debate with you (on any topic).

Hey Jacques, you accused me of 'making things up' - so either a) don't make the accusation; b) back it up; or c) don't criticize me when I respond to your false accusation - it's utterly irrelevant how many times I responded in any other unrelated post - let's stick to the issue.

What exactly do you expect a person to do when you make false accusations?

I don't care who you are. I have a right to defend myself from your false accusations. Period.

You then follow with

If you keep on making the accusation that someone is being blocked from becoming a Director, then the onus remains on you to provide the proof or to stop your accusations.

Cindy, it sounds like you have personal issues about not getting elected. (you state as much)

Do the math. There is no onus on me to tell you what you already know.

So now that's clear, Cindy certainly has my full support and that of so many others - so yes, why did a small group of directors 'block' Cindy from the OSM Board, ignoring those in the community who support her, when clearly, a directorship spot on OSM could have been made available?

I'm sorry Jacques if you take offense - but we certainly have a right to ask those questions and expect straight answers (as opposed to being accused of 'making things up').

If there are no good answers - then we have a right to be concerned.

Most of all, its a damn good thing that OSM is being asked these questions so that we can get to the bottom of it, get these issues out in the open, and hopefully move forward in way that engenders greater transparency and a democratic approach to OSM governance that permits the contributors and stakeholders to have a vote in their interests.

Jacques - it must be 5am by now where you are - no hard feelings or animosity - get some rest.

Cheers,

N

[MarijkeS]

Jacques - it must be 5am by now where you are - no hard feelings or animosity - get some rest.

Cheers,

N

Yes and it is even 6 am where I live!

So for now the short answer to a couple of your questions:

Why not public?
We are a community on the internet. Other then IRL where nominees are known by the members that can vote on them, and voting results are announced on the meeting to those members, the actual results are not posted on the internet and put up for the whole world to do whatever they desire with that information. Announced is who are voted on the board. Personally I don't think it is encouraging for anyone to have one (or more) posts public on the internet that you didn't receive enough (or perhaps not at all) votes. There is something called privacy, and I am a big proponent of keeping privacy about votes on people. Even within the board we don't know who votes for whom, we try to keep that privat in order to prevent tactical voting, or any other abuse you can think of.

Who votes?
in the past, the board directors made a proposal for the COC, the COC approved (or could disapprove.
The COC decided OSM was grown up enough to do it without them.
I don't think you have heard any board member say it is perfect as it is now, it is very clear that things are in process and we are working hard to have this process change. I am not going to tell you how many hours all board directors have put into this in the past months, I can't since I don't track them. But I can tell you this, it is huge, a lot, more then you will expect and can imagine.
So I only can say please bare with us. It is very clear we want to have changes done for 2015.

How do they vote?
Or why is someone not chosen?
Well we discuss nominees, we try to tell each other what we know of every nominee. We interview nominees to learn more about them. We take a couple of things in account when voting, like the vacancy we need to fill (obviously), the diversity where we can. Again, I asked this question to Cindy and now to you too: How do you deal with potential board directors that are very well skilled but not that known in the international community? They are often very active in their local community. I feel in the proposed way you and Cindy have, they wouldn't stand a chance, and we would fail largely in the vision to have a divers board that way. It is a huge concern I have, since my vision is that we NEED those people from local communities heavily to help us internationalize.

Now, off for some sleep. So don't expect an answer from me within in the next hours

[JacquesR]

Why on earth is it that are there good candidates, whom many have expressed support for, being prevented from serving on the OSM Board right now?

You are now making things up. There was an open call for nominations. That closed afaik on Friday. When you hurl such accusations around the burden of proof is on you.

You made the accusation, and I told you the burden of proof is on you.

If you now say it's about Cindy, then she can rather speak for herself. It's not reasonable to expect any board to go into details about why any candidate was not accepted. And to ask for details years after the fact is even less reasonable.

There's many very talented candidates in the Joomla! community, and not all of them get to serve on one of the leadership teams, for a variety of reasons.

I'm done posting in this thread.

Jacques

[NivF007]

@ MarijkeS

There is a lot of merit in what you have to say - and very eloquently put.

I am very sympathetic to these issues - yet even parents, despite their worst fears, need to 'let go,' or this tightly held control will, in my view, ultimately push people away.

It's time for OSM to embrace the community it serves - not fear them.

Here are some of the common arguments for democratic OSM that I feel apply to the OSM community:

1. Democracy will make contributors more interested in OSM projects because it gives them a say in it's affairs and a sense of responsibility;

2. Stakeholders will be more inclined to subscribe to and support governance decisions because they will feel that the OSM governance is one of their own creation;

3. A democratic government cannot become tyrannical our out of touch with the interests of it's stakeholders. It will be subject to regular and constant criticism and popular pressure. That alone provides responsibility and accountability. The people in power can retain that power only by invoking the sanction of popular support which can be possible only if it serves popular interests;

4. A democratic government must always to explain its policy and convince the electorate (OSM contributors) of its soundness. All decisions are to be arrived at by discussion, argument and persuasion. Democracy avoids suppression of thought and action; and

5. Democracy implies the recognition of the duties of the government and rights of the stakeholders. It postulates a measure of personal freedom and equal consideration for all stakeholders.

I feel in the proposed way you and Cindy have, they wouldn't stand a chance, and we would fail largely in the vision to have a divers board that way. It is a huge concern I have, since my vision is that we NEED those people from local communities heavily to help us internationalize.

On this I disagree. Open-source is first and foremost about freedoms, contributors and communities - it's governance needs to reflect that - and we'll be better for it.

I can say that the Governance Working Group certainly has given a great deal of consideration to the 'local communities' - yet I do not and cannot speak on their behalf - they will communicate their recommendations in a time and manner they see fit. Let's just say I'm quite certain these issues can be intelligently addressed given the right approach.

I guess the same arguments could be made for the Chinese or Iranian governments - in which those in power handpick those who will serve because they are concerned about their vision and welfare of their people and countries - and these arguments might have merit - and, further, I don't buy that all those serving in such regimes are 'bad people.'

But that's not us - is it?

I think the next year or so is going to be very interesting for OSM - to have an open-source project such as Joomla! democratically governed would be a truly amazing thing.

Personally, I'd very much like to see the OSM Directors work towards making that a viable reality. I'd love to see some communications of those goals from OSM Directors to the community - including firm commitments and timelines - even if all the finer details are not yet quite in focus - having a target date for which to aim will not only generate a lot of support and goodwill from the community, but help to ensure that 'things get done.'

My thoughts are that it would be best to move forward, let go of any past missteps, perceived or real, but to move forward to such a goal with purpose and as a top priority.

So in that respect...as a Joomla! 'fledgling' (hey...I've been graduated to an 'apprentice'), I really appreciate any thought and consideration that those currently on the OSM Board, and also future directors would give to these matters!

Anyways - thanks to everybody for the answers, the information and the debate!!!

N

[masterchief]

We, the development team, have serious concerns about the Mambo Foundation and its relationship to the community. We believe the future of Mambo should be controlled by the demands of its users and the abilities of its developers...
... We, the community, have no voice in its government or the future direction of Mambo.

Read Andrew Eddies full post here

Replace "Mambo Foundation" with Open Source Matter and "Mambo" with Joomla.

The upcoming election to fill 6-9 seats on the Open Source Matters Board of Directors will be ENTIRELY SELF APPOINTED. I find that to be sickening and NOT in the spirit of the community.

Hi Cindy. As someone who was there, the situation is different. On receiving the documentation from the Victorian Government that the Mambo Foundation had been created, Peter Lamont informed our core team that all bets were off and that he, the copyright holder, had appointed his own board (out of order according to Victorian law, but hey, it still happened) and that we would be invited on board on a case-by-case basis (Peter had held a secret meeting with his new board a few days prior, again, not following lawful procedure). So while OSM is now self-appointing, the motivations are a tad different (read poles apart). It should also be noted that the Community Oversight Community was simply rubber-stamping OSM's self-governance for many years. The point is what is happening now has already happened for quite some years so there's nothing new to be sickened over. Will it be interesting to watch how things change? Sure it will. Will mistakes be made. Absolutely. Is there the potential for greatness to be achieved. We all hope so as much as can be expected from anyone who contributes to our project

[Webdongle]

Niv - I've answered your question. ...

You have not answered his questions.

In addition the video linked to is not relevant to the topic. It relates to two peoples personal opinion about Open source projects in general. Open Source Matters is not an Open source project it is a not for profit organisation ... Joomla is the Open source project. Your introduction of that link shows that you are confusing the two things. The questions asked relate to the OSM (the not for profit organisation) not the open source project (Joomla) itself.

There is something called privacy, and I am a big proponent of keeping privacy about votes on people. Even within the board we don't know who votes for whom, we try to keep that privat in order to prevent tactical voting, or any other abuse you can think of

Who votes for whom is (and should) be private. But hiding who nominates themselves(or agrees to be nominated) for a position on the board is not privacy ... that is secrecy.

I have been watching this thread and still waiting to see a link to a list of people who have been nominated to the board.

[brian]

As, with Andrew and Mitch, I am one of the original three signatories to the legal documents that formed OpenSourceMatters I just wanted to confirm exactly what Andrew stated in his post above.

One thing that I have always felt important is that becoming a OSM member (for lack of a better word) is based on skills and talents and not based on a popularity contest. In addition as serving on OSM is a time consuming and onerous task I believe it is essential that OSM do take into consideration the balance of the team and the ability to work together. That is something I have 100% trust that OSM can do and have done.

[Webdongle]

...
One thing that I have always felt important is that becoming a OSM member (for lack of a better word) is based on skills and talents and not based on a popularity contest. ....

No arguments there and the reasons of board members and the way they vote is private ... that is not in question. The question is not why or how nominees are voted for ... the question is - 'Who are the nominees ?'. I for one am not overly interested in who the nominees are ... what is intriguing me about this thread is all the excuses(and rhetoric) used to avoid answering that question.

The deliberate avoidance of answering the question is like a big red button that says 'Do not push'. As a result you get users trying to push the button. Just publish a list of nominations for the board and you will stop all the rhetoric.

[masterchief]

@Webdongle, the answer was "they just aren't" (Marijke answered that only the final results are made public). Take it or leave it but it is what it is. For what it's worth, my experience with NPO's is the nominations are a part of the public record as are the final count of the votes (but not who voted for whom). I'd encourage OSM to look at such a policy in the future as they are finding a new "norm" because it helps with transparency. But for now, meh, I'm sure there are a million and one things to worry about. I trust the new board to sort out "the details" over time. I mean, who of us as contributors have done a perfect job of contributing ...