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.