Perens throwing in the “even Microsoft might get a seat on the board” is the kind of scare mongering that we usually see from the Bush administration regarding terrorism.

As I explain on my blog, saying that the OSI would offer Microsoft a seat is like saying we’ll elect the Republican Party to the White House. The board seats are held by individuals, not by corporations, and we take great care to consider only the individual’s potential for conflict of interest or appearance of corporate favoritism *as negative indicators* rather than considering *at all* whatever positive benefits that person’s corporate affiliations may bring. Thus, I agree with Swashbuckler that Bruce is making a statement that is logically, historically, and categorically wrong.

Please sign onto my campaign at http://techp.org/p/7.
While we are now told that a Microsoft candidacy is not realistic this year, I would like to be there to vote against it next year or the year afterward. The board’s self-electing mechanism does not let us know who the candidates are (other than me) or even what the date of the election is. There is no visibility at all. So, obviously it’s reasonable to be concerned about who is getting in there. Current OSI board member Matt Asay also leads the Open Source Business Conference, where Microsoft was offered the keynote speech.
Mike Tiemann claims that they elect officers, not the companies they work for. Unfortunately, this can be naivé. Individual representation is also the stated policy in some standards organizations, where I have sat across from an avowed “individual” who was clearly representing his company.

[...] So what to do now? As I chuckle over the recent scorched earth campaign by Bruce Perens in an attempt to regain former glory, I’ve been thinking about some recent articles and blog posts which mention an “identity crisis” for Open Source. Upon further thought, I think there is an identity crisis at work, but it’s not merely the result of coming of age or losing authenticity, as suggested elsewhere. Rather, it is the result of a narrowing of thought, a failure to comprehend, and a willingness to remain blind to new information. It is the same type of thought that will lay down the law of what “open” means and reward those - and only those - who adhere to the OSD, without considering the possibility that new developments demand thoughtful reexamination of the rules. After all, because of the success of the term “Open Source”, the OSI *must* have been absolutely correct in its formulation and governance, right? [...]

[...] Perens had previously campaigned to be considered alongside Martin Michlmayr and Harshad Gune and while he succeeded in that regard, [...]

[...] have previously observed a growing animosity of some sectors of the open source software user community towards [...]