A Vision for OSI's Future

Elections
1

As a Board member of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and former Chair (2023-24), I am seeking re-election in the Affiliate slate to continue strengthening OSI’s role in protecting digital freedoms. OSI has undergone a critical transformation in recent years, and I stand by the choices that have restored its relevance.

OSI’s Transformation

For years, OSI struggled as a volunteer-run organization, narrowly focused on license approvals. In 2020, we embraced change—transitioning to a professionally managed entity with clear governance, a dedicated staff, and a strategic vision. This shift has allowed OSI to raise its profile, build coalitions, and secure its position as a leader in Open Source policy.

During my tenure, we expanded our policy team, secured key partnerships, and engaged legislators worldwide to protect Open Source principles. We’ve also taken on strategic projects, including supporting the Open Source Congress and hosting critical initiatives such as Clearly Defined and Opensource.net. Most notably, we engaged with the AI-developers’ communities to develop a suitable way to interpret point #2 of the Open Source Definition, ensuring that the term “Open Source AI” is not co-opted by entities seeking to exploit it.

Defending the Open Source AI Definition

Some argue we should have waited years before defining Open Source AI. This is misguided. The term “Open Source” is now highly valuable, and without our action, its meaning in AI would have been diluted by opportunistic players. Legislation, including the European AI Act, necessitated immediate and clear definitions to safeguard true Open Source models.

Rather than waiting for a perfect definition years too late, we acted decisively. The work is not finished—we must refine and improve OSAID—but walking away now would be an abdication of responsibility.

OSI Board: A Unified Voice

OSI’s Board operates under a clear agreement: members may disagree internally but must support final decisions publicly. This is not censorship; it is good governance. Board members have a fiduciary duty to OSI, and public contradictions weaken the organization’s credibility. If one cannot accept this responsibility, the honorable path is to step aside.

The Stakes in This Election

OSI stands at a crossroads. I support candidates with experience, dedication, and a commitment to collaboration—not those driven by personal agendas or disruptive motives. We cannot afford regression to an era of inefficiency and irrelevance.

I seek re-election to ensure OSI continues to grow, strengthen its influence, and remain a bulwark for Open Source freedoms. This is not just about OSI’s future—it is about the future of Open Source itself.

8 Likes
2

Unlike Carlo, I am not a Board member (I ran in 2020 but was not elected), but like Carlo, I am a candidate for election this year, although on the Individual slate. I generally share Carlo’s issues and concerns so endorse his platform as my own, with a few minor additions.

I’ve been involved with OSI for quite a long time (since the mid-'00s) and I see the transformation to a professionally-staffed and adequately-funded entity as a huge step in the right direction. Like Carlo, I would hate to see that momentum stalled or lost.

Also like Carlo, I believe the best approach on the OSAID is to defend it, and – if necessary – mend it, but as someone who watched Stefano and others travel around the world to get feedback and input on the first draft of OSAID, the idea that it was rushed or did not gather sufficient input or consensus seems inconsistent with its history. I believe OSAID 1.0 is a very good, and perhaps definitive, model for defining an open AI system. Let’s start from that premise and move forward.

I also believe that the Board should speak as a unified voice. In a separate posting, I’ve mentioned the “disagree and commit” model that was a large part of my work history – at an employer that held it as a corporate value – and I think it has huge value in ensuring robust discussion but also showing a unified face after a decision has been made. Having voices within the Board arguing against decisions that the Board has ultimately made can have a corrosive effect on the decisionmaking of the Board and legitimacy of its decisions.

There are a few other issues beyond those that Carlo has identified that are important to me, and which were part of my platform in 2020 that I still hold to – particuarly around more clarity around the OSD and how licenses conform to it, as well as better information availability on license approval and disapproval debates – but those are relatively minor compared to the issues that Carlo identifies.

5 Likes
3

Thanks McCoy. I think we discussed the issue of OSD application during our effort to better study how it was applied in the past. Incidentally we have never thanked you enough for the work you have done to spot issues in almost the entire dataset – an example of true dedication to the success of Open Source through without fanfare and seeking accolades.
It is definitely an area we must spend more resources and effort, I agree. The committee to which we (you mostly) have dedicated a lot of time should revamp its works after this election cycle is over.

1 Like
4

As a candidate for the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Board of Directors, I’m committed to carrying out the Mission, Core Values and Commitments of the OSI. Relevance, reputation, and sustainability are at the core of my vision - developing and executing strategies that ensure long-term viability through financial, operational, and organizational resilience.

As a Board member, I would encourage and support evolving the OSAID through an in-depth retrospective that evaluates the practical applications of it to the most common use cases. As a key priority I would work to simplify the OSAID, and the adoption of it, by: (1) identifying and eliminating barriers to determining whether an AI system complies with the OSAID, helping to ensure consistent and accurate application of it, and (2) addressing obstacles to adopting the OSAID as the universal standard. Such a retrospective should be a carefully structured, constructive collaboration that considers all perspectives, and one that I feel would help solidify OSI’s role and its reputation as the definitive authority on the OSAID.

Through my extensive experience working in the open source diligence and compliance trenches for years, I feel I would bring practical knowledge and strategic insight to the OSI Board. Thank you for your consideration.

Opinions are my own and not of my employer

3 Likes
5

Of course your opinions are of your own but you would be biased to make sure you have means of living. At this point i am more inclined to roll the dice and vote by whatever number that comes up. We’re all human and fallible so therefore whatever choices we make wont matter in the long term.