🗳 Proposal: Adjustment to TAC Election Timing and Term Structure
Anton Arapov
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:22PM
Public
Seen by 12
The OpenSSL Corporation board proposes adjusting the timing and structure of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) elections to better align with the OpenSSL Corporation’s board terms, improve continuity, and reinforce engagement expectations.
TAC election timing and structure update
proposal by Anton Arapov Closed Wed 12 Nov 2025 9:52AM
The proposal to adjust the timing and structure of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) elections has been adopted.
The first cycle under this structure will begin with the nomination period from January 19 to February 1, 2026, followed by voting from February 2 to February 20, 2026.
New terms will commence in March 2026, with two-year staggered terms ensuring rotation and continuity.
Details
Current situation: TAC members were elected on May 12, 2025, for one-year terms ending in mid-May 2026.
-
Proposed change:
Nomination period: January 19 – February 1, 2026
Voting period: February 2 – February 20, 2026
New terms commence: March 2026
-
Additional updates:
Term length: Extend to two years.
Rotation: Half the members stand for election each cycle. The 2026 group will be chosen by random draw.
Alignment: BAC elections will follow the same schedule starting in 2026.
In-person participation: Attendance at at least one in-person meeting per term is mandatory. Members unable to meet this requirement must resign, allowing their community to appoint a representative who can attend.
Rationale
This change aligns advisory and board cycles (March–February), strengthens coordination, and supports continuity and accountability through overlapping terms and direct participation.
Decision
Do you support adopting this updated TAC election timing and structure?
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 5 | 83 | 83 |
|
| Abstain | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 1 | 17 | 17 |
|
|
| Undecided | 0 | 0 |
6 of 6 votes cast (100% participation)
Nicola Tuveri
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
I agree on the alignment, I am biased towards giving an opportunity to new members of the academic community to participate in the earlier election both as nominees and voters.
I do not have a strong preference over the extension of the term for 2 years, but I do like a lot the staggered system renewing half the seats to pursue better continuity!
Aditya Koranga
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
I support it. I think 1 year term is better but 2 years is also acceptable to me.
Dmitry Belyavsky
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
I agree with this approach but for participation in person it's crucial for me to have a meeting in Europe.
Probably having a deputy representative makes sense
Shane Lontis
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
I understand the reasoning behind wanting a longer term initially because it may be more efficient whilst processes are learned. It does however seem unfair if there are other potential candidates that would want to contest the positions. If there are no additional candidates, then there would be no contest after the term of a year.
I agree with attending meetings in person.
Paul Yang
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
Continuity is important for long term objectivs to come true.
Craig Lorentzen
Wed 5 Nov 2025 12:25PM
I agree with the approach to ensure new membership while maintaining stability and velocity of institutional knowledge from the other half.
One concern will companies and individuals sign up for two years of service? Each member will need to confirm with their management if they can continue for another year. In the early new year we can confirm who has the ability to continue and see if we have enough stepping down.
Tim Hudson Fri 7 Nov 2025 4:46AM
Nothing would preclude the TAC members from volunteering which three step down and perhaps stand for re-election for Feb 2026 - i.e. if there were three volunteers to end at Feb 2026 then there does not need to be a random draw.
That is one way to address concerns for members who want to give someone else an opportunity to step forward from their community - i.e. you can agree with the change here and also decide you want to vacate your seat and stand for election in Feb 2026 again.
Basically we had in mind this sort of model of longer terms and half-rotation each election originally, but we settled on the simple 1 year term as a compromise when starting out. The OpenSSL Foundation does not plan to alter things as you will have seen from their election announcement. We had hoped to stay in alignment in how things are handled, but we definitely see the problem with the current one year term and we did not want to wait another year to address it.
Nicola Tuveri Tue 11 Nov 2025 6:14AM
@Tim Hudson  I for one would be happy to volunteer to step down to trigger a re-election for Academics C-TAC for Feb 2026. I would like to give the opportunity to the new members who joined the community to nominate themselves and express their vote.
Anton Arapov · Thu 6 Nov 2025 7:58AM
@shanelontis The change in timing does not affect fairness; nominations and elections will remain open to all as they have been before. The two-year term and rotation are meant to improve continuity.
For the 2026 transition, half of the current TAC members will be selected by random draw to serve one additional year. After that, all members will be elected on the same two-year cycle, with equal access to nomination.