In response to the Anonymous comment, I believe that there *are* licenses on the OSI list that violate the OSD.  I wouldn't "name and shame" them at the moment, as I think that that needs more of a community discussion, and/or perhaps a non-public communication with those licenses' stewards about that concern.  I believe that I am not alone in this belief, at least amongst those who have a good familiarity with both the OSD and the full list of licenses approved by OSI.
There are also duplicative licenses, but the OSI already categorizes those licenses as duplicative and identify the more commonly used license of which they are duplicative. I think that categorization is sufficient to steer potential users of the duplicative licenses to the more commonly used ones.

In response to Luis:

1. If OSI could do only one thing, what would it be?

Well, I listed three, you want to pick my favorite?  If so, it would be #2 on my list.

2. Should OSI move towards a board that advises more and does (on a day-to-day basis) less? If so, what will you do to help bring about that change? If not, why not?

As other candidates have pointed out, you can only do so much with volunteers for whom Board membership is only a part-time endeavor.  Having paid staff to do the things that volunteers do now (like, to cite a very recent example, monitoring and removing inappropriate content on the mailing lists) would be much better, particularly for an organization as important to a community and an industry as OSI. I'm certainly happy to advocate for that (although that's not my main issue), with the understanding that to do that OSI probably has to significantly ramp up its fundraising, in doing so probably needs to rely substantially on large corporate sponsorships, and there will be a subset of community people will perceive that as selling out or playing the tune for those who pay the piper.

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

To quote an overused aphorism, "change comes from within." As I identified above, I think there are internal changes that OSI should make to address some issues that have particularly come to a head within the past two years. As to public awareness, I'm more than happy to use my advocacy skills to raise awareness of what the OSI does, why what it does is important to developers (and to those they wish to use their software), and why people should pay more attention to what's happening at OSI and make their voices heard.  In fact - as you know but perhaps others reading these comments may not - I've been pretty consistently saying that people need to let their voices be heard about things like copyleft expansion and "ethical" open source.  Cf. my presentation at CopyleftConf last year.

3. 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?

Well, I do like to sleep regularly so I really only have about 16 hours in the day.  And I've got a 9 year old son and a spouse who don't find open source something they want to spend family time talking about (although I do have some hope the 9 year old might some day).  I think the platform I've outlined above, as well as the advocacy I've already done as described in the previous answer, outlines why I'm putting myself up for possible participation on the Board.

4. 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.).

There already *is* the start of something that looks like an Ethical Software Initiative: https://ethicalsource.dev/ (there are others as well).  In general, I think all the organizations that work in the general area of liberalized licensing of technology ought to be working together toward common goals, when appropriate, and working individually when those goals diverge. It has probably not been beneficial that there has been a history of not working on common goals between OSI and FSF, and there has been a real or perceived antagonism between those two entities.  It is probably worth trying to change that.  Once the dust settles on the debate about ethical licensing and the OSD, there may be room to do the same with the people promoting that philosophy.
FWIW, I have a hard time conceiving of a way to create a software ethics license that would satisfy OSD 5 and 6, although I don't rule it out (and there have been some interesting proposals on Twitter and on the license-discuss mailing list about how to square the two).  I think that debate should continue - in a respectful way - until it is resolved, and then perhaps OSI should consider the people working toward ethical software as a separate group pursuing parallel but not identical goals.

Not sure why the strikeout is happening in comment above.....

Thanks Patrick & Mekki.  OSI should know better than to take away a lawyer's ability to use an em dash!