I'm running for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board which is the organization that manages the definition of open source and open source licenses.
In this article - there were four questions that was asked. I'm going to answer them one by one. A copy of these answers will also be on the OSI wiki.
I thought the answers would be of interest to the people here - and also more accessible in general and since the questions were asked in public it makes sense to respond in kind and not just buried in the OSI wiki. So let's begin!
If OSI could only do one thing, what would it be?
Since last election this question was answered with the advent of the mission statement - let's build on that! The mission statement should always be re-evaluated at the start of the new year - the direction of where an organization goes is somewhat dynamic and that one thing could strategically change every year. So if we are in a year where we are putting the mission statement into practice - we should be building a process of evaluating our mission.
Should OSI move towards a board that…does less on a day-to-day basis?
I can say that having served on a non-profit board where we were micro-managing even the smallest decisions - it leaves the board members feeling that higher goals were unfulfilled. So I strongly believe this is the right decision to make. Let's drive high level direction and trust the staff to manage the day to day operations. It's one of the advantages of having staff - and something I strongly support.
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?
Let's turn the question around - what is the OSI doing to make itself known to the millions of people who collaborate and build software online? If we look at the mission statement - that is not an expressed goal and we should change it if that is important. Given that bit of pedantry - let's answer the question: People will recognize an organization for 1) its services/value and 2) its outreach. As an example of outreach; forming a coalitions is a good beginning. The more organizations you work with, the more expansive your audience gets. Happy to follow up on this question more.
If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI's relationship to it be?
Ideologies are always lie on a spectrum and open source is no exception. In the past, we had OSI and FSF on ostensibly on opposite sides of spectrum and now with open source increasingly growing in popularity - the spectrum is expanding. I think this a good thing. I find those who have uncompromising ideology to be an excellent barometer against sliding too far from our original ideals.
I know when I've moved to far from Free Software and move back towards balance thanks to organizations like the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Conservancy - without those who do not compromise we have no bedrock.
In almost every instance, all of us will share a set of values that we can collaborate on - even if we have different missions. Focus on what we have in common and partner on those. For the differences, it's going to be a process of trust building. When I help start the Linux App ecosystem, we had to build trust between GNOME and KDE. That largely was successful because we both could agree that building an app ecosystem was important. Over time, we don't even think about the differences as much and find ourselves enjoying working with each other.
When a license decision involves a topic on which the Open Source Definition is vague or otherwise unhelpful, what should the board do?
Let's make the assumptions that we are neither lawyers or spend a lot of time reading license. I know I am neither. I would have to educate myself and that means talking to folks on the license-review mailing list. I expect a process of leveraging the experts that informs the board before making a decision and then look for the best political outcome. Every situation is different and should evaluated differently.
What role should the new staff play in license evaluation (or the OSD more generally)?
I prefer if the staff stayed out of it and focused on a support role. A good staff should be focused on supporting the mission statement and the organization; that might mean much more expansive roles on where the organization is going in terms of fundraising and building relationships.
It's really hard to determine what the make up a board will be but on the chance that a particularly weak board was elected, it's actions are not reflected on the staff and the staff can claim complete neutrality.
Finally, as with all nonprofit board roles, the question of "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?" is every bit as pertinent as it was last year.
As a person who been part of this nearly from the beginning watching the growth of the Linux platform, participating in a community Free Software project, and having the privilege of being in the presence of so many idealistic people - I've come to feel a certain ownership to the ecosystem we've all help build together.
I want to be on the board because I want to solve hard problems or at very least do mitigating steps if I'm not up to the task. I've gone through a lot of diverse roles and will continue to do many of them and I'd like to make the skills that I've learned available to this community and with hard work and leave it better than when I left it.
Photo by Finn Hackshaw on Unsplash
Top comments (0)