1. If OSI could do only one thing, what would it be? (Obviously it can do more, but not much more, so I’d love to understand your #1 priority for the org.)

If OSI could do one thing only, it should be the steward of the open source definition.

Of course, this seems like an easy job if you believe that the current OSD shouldn’t be touched, but that’s an extremely naive position; even countries have ways to amend their constitution.

Keeping the OSD relevant while keeping FOSS values alive in an ever changing landscape is a huge challenge that requires leadership, humility, and grit. If the OSI manages to do only that for the next two decades it would be a huge success in my opinion.

Should OSI move towards a board that advises more and does (on a day-to-day basis) less?

Absolutely. The OSI needs more funds, more staff, and a board that’s more focused on projects and an advisory role rather than day to day operations.

If so, what will you do to help bring about that change? If not, why not?

To bring about this change, OSI needs to leverage as many capable volunteers as it can to help drive sustainable funding. Removing limitations around board member seats and dropping elections (two of the changes I’m suggesting) would help make sure OSI can have the right people as part of its board to help make this happen.

2. If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?

That’s a false dichotomy. OSI should lead, and that’s essentially both being a stabilizing force and creating change. But it’s measured, thoughtful change that anticipates long-term trends, not reaction to fads.

So when it comes to ethical licensing, for example, which is clearly on track to become an important long term trend, OSI should be busy figuring out how to reconcile the community’s desire for social good with FOSS values. That’s leadership. It’s anticipating change, anchored in strong values and with a solid grasp of history.

3. What should OSI do about the tens of millions of people who regularly collaborate to build software online (often calling that activity, colloquially, open source) but have literally no idea what OSI is or what it does?

OSI should reach out to (some) of the millions of devs who work in open source. It should do so with a genuine desire to learn from them and understand how they define open source. As ultimately, their definition is the one that matters.

Some open source leaders have spoken about this publicly already and offer some interesting insights. Consider DHH's Open source beyond the market talk, for example.

A panel or discussion with a few younger open source leaders could be enlightening. Imagine something along the lines of "How does the GitHub generation define open source and what's OSI's role in it?"

4. You have 24 hours in the day, and are talented enough to do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI?

That's a great question. 

I'm privileged to own an open source consulting firm that's sufficiently profitable that I can spend some of my work hours to advance causes that I believe in. Ethics in tech, and in open source in particular, is one of those. 

It's clear to me know that these concerns are mainstream and will prevail, regardless of what position the OSI takes. But we'll get there faster through collaboration with the OSI and we'll make fewer mistakes along the way. I think I can help make that collaboration happen, so it feels like a good use of my time.

5. If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI’s relationship to it be? (If you’re uncomfortable answering this about ethical software, consider instead answering with regards to the FSF or LF, or another hypothetical institution that to some extent competes with OSI for resources and influence.)

When you're genuine about the mission, what matters is the mission, not who fulfills it.

OSI should absolutely collaborate with related or competing initiatives provided what drives such initiatives is compatible with OSI's mission.

Thanks for those thoughtful questions, Luis. Happy to tackle follow-ups if you have any.

Thanks, Josh. As mentioned above, I hate that running for the board implies that we're running against each other. We need more hands on the decks, not risk losing some to a well-meaning but ultimately broken election system.

When it comes to ignoring voices advocating for ethics in open source, I agree that some OSI board members—you in particular—have been engaging in these conversations, and I thank them for it.

But concerns that are possibly shared by over half of the constituents that OSI is serving can't just be addressed by board members engaging in conversations when they see fit. They deserve seats at the table and to be recognized for their importance to the community. The OSI can't credibly claim to be representing the open source community otherwise.

So when I speak about the OSI ignoring these voices, I'm really talking about the absence of advocates of these issues on the board.

This segues nicely into your question about board elections. The problem with the system of elections is that it is absolutely not representative of the open source community at large. While it gives the impression of a democratic process it in fact creates a less democratic outcome than a solution that would be focused on representativity and diversity and would rely on consensus-seeking rather than voting. The fact that less than 600 people voting anonymously decide the outcome for millions is quite telling. There's literally no accountability for the voters, and yet they make decisions for millions of open source practitioners. The board on the other hand, would be held accountable.

Twitter polls are unquestionably biased; they're a clear example of convenience sampling. We shouldn't read to much into it. However, what this poll shows quite clearly is that, contrary to commonly held beliefs, ethical concerns around open source aren't fringe at all, they're very much mainstream. In itself, this is a very important piece of information, one that was missing from debates until then.

I'm interpreting the results differently than you do. To me, only 15% of respondents are against infringing on current formal FOSS definitions, 19% aren't hostile to the idea but don't think licensing is an effective tool for this to happen, 15% are curious about the idea, and 51% in favor.

As I said in a previous comment, a Twitter poll is pure convenience sampling, and certainly someone else would get slightly different result.

That said, given the number of retweets (close to a hundred) most of which are from account that don't follow me and that I don't follow, it's pretty clear that most respondents aren't actual followers of mine. I'm ready to take the bet that if ESR posted a similar poll in good faith, and got a similar number of answers, the results wouldn't be very different. Maybe you can convince him to give it a try?

In the meantime, this is the only data point that we have. So I stand by my conclusions until proven wrong by a more reputable data source.