Thanks for all questions related to the elections! Very glad to see your continuing interest in OSI and very much appreciate your statement about the org working very well right now. I am not sure whether it is already time for a victory lap, though, as we still have many challenges ahead of us [see my WHY statement above]. But there is definitely a lot of good but invisible work going on behind the scenes and it makes me very happy to see this work being recognised. For me personally, the biggest lesson learned is that change takes time… especially on a voluntary, consensus driven environment.

You are right – time is always an issue and we all want to make sure our time is spent wisely and primarily on subjects we are concerned about and interested in. And it should be fun, too! For me, Open Source is an important part of that – a subject that is very close to my heart and a community I enjoy engaging in. Working with OSI as an organisation offers a nice opportunity to combine personal interest with work in the public interest. And working as chair with the current board has been a very pleasant experience, which I would very much enjoy being able to continue doing it. I expect my focus to be on the topics highlighted above, in particular on geographical outreach and visibility but also on organisational stability and growth.

Licensing process: The organization has proposed improvements to the license-review process. What do you think of them?

The licensing committee has done an excellent job in reviewing, discussing and providing recommendations to examine and improve the license review process. The result is a tremendous step forward. Even if it does not address the question if and how there should be a process to decertify licenses, it brings clarity and consistency for future review and approval proceedings. Especially the opportunity to adopt a machine-readable tagging system will help identify and structure OSI approved licenses.

Reviewing the current license database and evaluating whether there should be a process for decertifying licenses, and what the process and standards would be, is still a highly relevant question for OSI. However, such an undertaking requires significant time and resources. The same applies to the general review and visible presentation of already approved licenses, which should be a first step to prepare for any kind of discussion about decertifying licenses. Let’s take one step at a time and finalise the current proposal before we look into the question of decluttering and tidying up the existing license database. We are still inviting comments and suggestions and would welcome yours!

Broader knowledge: 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 don’t know what OSI is or what it does?

Lack of knowledge about OSI as an organisation, its mission, and relevance is an ongoing concern for everyone involved in OSI. When I joined the board in 2021 and took responsibility as chair of the board in April 2022, OSI had just made a major shift by hiring an Executive Director specifically tasked with improving visibility and outreach of OSI. Consequently, what happened in my first term was just the beginning of that effort and I expect it to continue to grow: OSI will continue and prioritise visibility and outreach by being present at relevant conferences and community events, engaging directly with smaller organisations, and also building a bigger network of industry partnerships. We are also planning to overhaul the Affiliate program as a way to further increase awareness and networking effects.

Regulation: New industry regulation in both the EU and US suggests government will be more involved in open source in the future. What role do you think OSI should play in these discussions? How would you, as a board member, impact that?

Yes, there is a lot going on! The European Commission is working on various proposals that are highly relevant for the Open Source ecosystem, including the Cyber Resilience Act or the Product Liability Directive – and the US is looking into these questions as well! We are following this with great concern and have just recently – among others – submitted a statement on the Cyber Resilience Act. We will continue to actively follow the development and engage in the discussions. However, it is also important to understand that OSI by nature and according to its bylaws is not positioned to participate or intervene in any political campaign. Our role is to provide information about the Open Source development model, its history, current practical relevance and especially implications for innovation in the software industry and beyond. We therefore educate and help legislatures and other parties involved understand the details and consequences of new regulatory efforts but we are not actively involved in any legislative effort.

Solo maintainers: The median number of developers on open source projects is one, and regulation and industry standards are increasing their burden. How (if at all) should OSI address that? Is there tension between that and industry needs?

OSI is an integrative organisation with more than 600 individual members. I think it is fair to say that we are built as an organization representing the Open Source community and especially its strong base of individual developers and maintainers. I wouldn’t say that there are tensions between individuals and the industry, but there is certainly work to do to ensure that the industry doesn’t get prioritised. Continuous engagement with the community and especially close rapport with individual developers and solo maintainers is therefore an important and ongoing part of OSI’s work.

OSI initiative on AI: What did you think of the recent OSI initiative on AI? If you liked it, what topics would you suggest for similar treatment in the future? If you didn’t like it, what would you improve, or do instead?

OSI has worked very hard to shift strategy and address key issues for its main stakeholders: Focussing on Artificial Intelligence and doing a series of events whereby we would engage in the discussion and learn from external partners and like-minded organizations on this particular topic was one of the results suggested by previous leadership at OSI. I personally agree that deep learning and “AI” is one of the most relevant topics for today’s society and consequently everyone, including the OSI as an organization, should be dealing with details and consequences. I also think that the format was a success – a very valuable resource of relevant voices and arguments. We should follow up on the discussion in the coming months and also consider the same or a similar formats (given that travel and face-to-face meetings are back on the agenda) for other socially relevant topics, e.g. security in the Open Source world or the rapid development of quantum computing in the context of software and networking infrastructure.

Responsible licensing: There are now multiple initiatives around “responsible” or “ethical” licensing, particularly (but not limited to) around machine learning. What should OSI’s relationship to these movements and organizations be?

OSI is the steward of the Open Source definition. Consequently, we have to look into all new initiatives targeting new concepts of license “categories” or labelling. The goal should be engage in the discussion and build bridges where relevant and auspicious. We should avoid, however, any attempt to dilute the Open Source definition which could harm the Open Source ecosystem.

Your time: You have 24 hours in the day and could do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI? What do you expect your focus to be during those hours?

Licensing process: The organization has proposed improvements to the license-review process. What do you think of them?

Broader knowledge: 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 don’t know what OSI is or what it does?

Regulation: New industry regulation in both the EU and US suggests government will be more involved in open source in the future. What role do you think OSI should play in these discussions? How would you, as a board member, impact that?

Solo maintainers: The median number of developers on open source projects is one, and regulation and industry standards are increasing their burden. How (if at all) should OSI address that? Is there tension between that and industry needs?

OSI initiative on AI: What did you think of the recent OSI initiative on AI? If you liked it, what topics would you suggest for similar treatment in the future? If you didn’t like it, what would you improve, or do instead?

Responsible licensing: There are now multiple initiatives around “responsible” or “ethical” licensing, particularly (but not limited to) around machine learning. What should OSI’s relationship to these movements and organizations be?