Academics: delegate participation, action needed by Friday June 19
Anton Arapov Mon 15 Jun 2026 4:46PMPublicSeen by 24Hi Academics members,
Following our delegate participation policy, we reviewed voting over the last 12 months. To hold delegate status, a delegate must vote in at least 25% of the community's eligible polls in a rolling year.
How we got here: when the communities were first set up, delegate roles were filled automatically during the bootstrap, on a first-come, first-served basis, without a formal nomination. That got the communities running, but it means several seats were never actively chosen and some delegates have since moved on or changed roles. This is not about blame; it is the first step in moving from that bootstrap state to active, chosen representation.
Why this matters: the community decides through delegate votes. When seats are inactive we cannot reach the participation needed to decide, and our voice in OpenSSL governance weakens. Active delegates are what let us make decisions at all.
The following institutions are currently under the 25% bar and their delegate seat is at risk (institutions whose delegate joined after the most recent poll are not listed, since they have not yet had a chance to vote):
MIT, University of Auckland, University of Waterloo, Trinity College Dublin, Masaryk University, Carnegie Mellon University, Arizona State University, University of Tripoli, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Thomas Edison State College/University, UC Irvine, Chelpis Quantum Tech, FWI and NIST, and one retired-academic seat.
What to do by end of day Friday, June 19:
If you intend to keep representing your institution, please re-engage by voting in the open polls.
Or nominate a new, active delegate.
To change your delegate, reach out to the community's BAC representatives (TAC as failover), as described in the policy.
If we do not hear back by June 19, these seats will be reviewed for reassignment so the community can keep functioning. We would much rather keep you represented, so please step up.
Thank you.
Stephen FarrellTue 16 Jun 2026 7:18PM
FWIW, I also see no open polls.
Anton ArapovMon 27 Jul 2026 3:26PM
Update, and closing this out.
Thanks @Peter Gutmann and @Stephen Farrell. First, you were both right that there were no open polls to "re-engage by voting" on when this went out. That was a gap in how I framed the deadline, and I'm not treating non-voting as disengagement on that basis.
Second, the roster tidy-up is done. Delegate labels that had been inactive over the past year have been retired. This is only the delegate label; memberships and accounts are untouched, and it is reversible. Both of you keep your seats.
Peter, your point about standing back when you can't make an informed call (for example electing a TAC member you don't know) is fair, and a chair-discretion or formal abstention option is a good idea. I'll take that to the participation policy rather than count it against anyone.
Thanks again. Closing the thread.
Peter GutmannWed 29 Jul 2026 7:22AM
Chair-discretion would be good, abstention seems more an "I have a reason not to vote" while chair-discretion is "I don't know enough about the issue to vote on it but would support the chair/consensus decision".
Gadepalli RGWed 29 Jul 2026 5:30PM
@Peter GutmannExcellent observation here 👏🙂, very valid point made here because lack of complete knowledge is quite different from no knowledge at all in making a choice, Thank you 🙏🏼 and appreciated
Peter Gutmann ·Tue 16 Jun 2026 12:45AM
Hi Anton,
>If you intend to keep representing your institution, please re-engage by
>voting in the open polls.
One small problem with this, there aren't any open polls :-). Also I've voted
on the ones where I felt I could provide useful input, but for others I stood
back and let others decide because I felt I wasn't qualified to provide an
opinion, for example electing someone to the TAC that I had no knowledge of
and therefore couldn't make an informed vote on.
For cases like that, would it make sense to have an option like "At the
discretion of the chairperson" as they have for absentee votes in meetings, so
"I'll let the meeting chairperson decide for me"?
Peter.