Best,
-------
Anthony Middleton
Community Manager, Ceph Foundation
Community Manager, Ceph Foundation
The CSC 2026 - Q1 election was conducted according to the guidelines set forth in section two, part six of the CSC Charter (Adopted Feb 12, 2026), available at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/main/doc/technical-charter.rst. With support and input from current CSC members (Joseph Mundackal, Mark Nelson, Neha Ojha, and Patrick Donnelly), the next CSC election is scheduled for October 2026.
This election served as the makeup for the missing 2025 election. This election cycle ran from March 19 through April 29, with results announced on May 4. The election was administered by Anthony Middleton, Ceph Community Manager, using ElectionBuddy as the voting platform, following a recommendation from the Linux Foundation. This report outlines the structure of the election, participation levels, outcomes, and key observations from both stages.
ElectionBuddy
ElectionBuddy was selected to manage the 2026 CSC election. The platform supported a multi-stage voting process and introduced capabilities that aligned more closely with CSC governance needs.
Highlights
Supports ranked-choice voting, enabling more flexible and representative outcomes for leadership roles
Streamlined ballot distribution and tracking, with automated email delivery and vote confirmations
Clear audit trails and real-time result visibility for election administrators
Configurable ballots, allowing multiple question types across different election stages
The 2026 CSC election was conducted in two stages.
Stage 1 included two questions:
Governance Update (Removal Clause)
This question proposed updating the CSC member responsibilities to include a removal clause. Due to unclear wording, the question caused confusion among voters and was ultimately discarded. Following a discussion at the March 16th CSC meeting, it was agreed that Anthony Middleton would rewrite the removal section for clarity before reintroducing it as a GitHub RP.
Co-Chair Nominations
Voting members were asked to nominate up to three CSC members for the Co-Chair ballot. A list of all active CSC members was provided.
Participation
21 ballots were submitted out of 36 eligible voters (58%)
Outcome and Observations
Results from the governance question were not counted
Nomination results were retained and used to form the final ballot
There was confusion about the structure of the election, with some participants believing Stage 1 was the final vote
Several members did not receive ballots due to outdated contact information on the CSC Governance page
Voting was reopened for an additional three days to account for missed participation
Following Stage 1, outreach was conducted to all individuals nominated. Of the 11 members nominated, 6 accepted placement on the final ballot.
A new addition to this election cycle was the introduction of candidate statements. Each candidate was given up to two minutes during a CSC meeting to speak about their candidacy. This was the first time this format was used and was received positively by CSC members.
Stage 2 ran for two weeks and included:
Two governance questions related to CSC membership removal
One ranked-choice vote to elect CSC Co-Chairs
Participation
27 ballots submitted out of 36 eligible voters (75%)
1 spoiled ballot recorded
CSC members determined that these members were seen as inactive.
Ken Dreyer Removal Vote
27 votes in favor
0 abstentions
Jeff Layton Removal Vote
25 votes in favor
2 abstentions
A ranked voting system was used to elect up to three Co-Chairs. A governance constraint was applied to ensure that no more than two Co-Chairs could come from the same organization.
Vote Distribution
Patrick Donnelly — 20 votes (27.40%)
Neha Ojha — 16 votes (21.92%)
Dan van der Ster — 14 votes (19.18%)
Joseph Mundackal — 11 votes (15.07%)
Ernesto Puerta — 6 votes (8.22%)
Gregory Farnum — 6 votes (8.22%)
Outcome
The top three vote-getters were selected as CSC Co-Chairs, subject to the rule on organizational representation.
Stage 2 showed clear improvement over Stage 1:
Ballot structure and questions were better understood
No significant confusion was reported during voting
Participation increased from 58% to 75%
However, some challenges remained:
A portion of eligible voters did not participate despite multiple follow-ups via email and Slack
Delayed responses from non-participating members slowed the overall process
The 2026 CSC election introduced several meaningful improvements, including ranked-choice voting and candidate statements, both of which contributed to a more transparent and participatory process. While Stage 1 revealed gaps in communication and ballot clarity, those issues were addressed in Stage 2, resulting in stronger engagement and cleaner execution.
Future election cycles would benefit from clearer ballot language upfront, enforced updates to voter contact information, and continued use of candidate advocacy opportunities.
