In response to Luis' https://opensource.com/article/21/3/board-elections-osi - here's a quick set of responses, note that if I have an opportunity to serve in the OSI, I would take a fresh look at all the Working Groups, internal/external tools and processes to see what we can do to simplify and improve the organization. There is still a lot for me to learn about the internal workings of the organization that I don't fully understand

- 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?

I'd love to have enough fundraising in the OSI to do more marketing about what the OSI is and promote more references back to the OSI. Furthermore, the stronger the OSI affiliate network is, the strong the OSI is. There are many more organizations that should be part of the OSI Affiliate program and I'd like to see that happen https://flossfoundations.org - I'd also advocate to find ways the OSI can produce educational materials that could be reused by companies and organizations on educating the world on what the OSI is, we could explore a partnership with say edX.org or some other educational institution. I do think one of the historical mis-steps of the OSI was to not focus on brand recognition / potential conformance mark, however, I think we can invest to fix that.

I also think there are many opportunities where we can partner with GitHub, GitLab and other areas to ensure that the OSI is properly referenced or featured in a way to promote the OSD and OSI organization as a whole.

- If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI's relationship to it be?

I view the ESI as a completely separate organization with its own mission/charter/goals. I don't know if there would be a formal relationship with the organization from an OSI perspective, but I would be open to having conversations in ensuring that there is clarity what ethical source is versus open source. I believe the more clarity we have on what is source available, ethical source and open source is a positive step for the industry, we need to ensure that it is really clear for adopters of these licenses in what they are getting into. I'd potentially look at listing all these licenses in a canonical place somewhere such as https://tldrlegal.com or elsewhere where it can be very clear what is an OSI approved license and what is not, we need more clarity for the sake of minimizing end user confusion. I do see that there are forces in the industry, especially in venture capital, that are deliberately causing confusion in the industry and I'd like to see that changed, I think we can come to an agreement where we can list all these separate license types clearly.

- When a license decision involves a topic on which the Open Source Definition is vague or otherwise unhelpful, what should the board do?

I strongly believe that the OSI should be a stabilizing force for the industry regarding the OSD, I think historically proven to work well, however, I think the communication/review styles need to change. First, I think the more we can do around transparency and improved FAQ/documentation the better we will be. I'd also like to see the OSI invest in modern tooling such as Gitlab for license review/discussion and treat the process more like programming languages (e.g., https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs) or modern open source projects like Kubernetes (https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps) when it comes to contentious topics, the OSI can actually learn something for other open source projects  

- What role should the new staff play in license evaluation (or the OSD more generally)?

I believe the staff in combination with the board should be there to assist working groups and the wider community, they should have no role in the final decision making process, but can help ensure things work smoothly and experts have time to voice their opinions. I believe the Executive Director should be the "face" of the organization and promote the OSD and OSI overall to the wider open source community.

Here's also two other questions from last year that I would have answered:

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

Assuming an Executive Director is hired, focus on fundraising to ensure that a PM can be hired to focus on growing/cultivating the affiliate program to make it more valuable. The stronger the affiliate network the strong the OSI is. There are many more organizations that should be part of the OSI Affiliate program and I'd like to see that happen https://flossfoundations.org

- Should OSI move towards a board that…does less on a day-to-day basis?

See my above answer, but I rather have the OSI board focused on higher level strategic goals than simple day to day operations. A healthy board of directors is a board that focused on the long term strategic goals and not day to day operations.