# Proposal to achieve consensus for the 1.0 release

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [October 9, 2024, 9:30pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653 "2024-10-09T21:30:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gvlx](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/gvlx/32/381_2.png) [@gvlx](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/gvlx)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 9:50am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653/9 "2024-10-17T09:50:41Z")

</div>

> [@kjetilk](#):
>
> That’s obviously not a luxury we have today, but it is very clear that it is easier to start narrow and allow more to fit, then to throw things out.

In that regard, and whatever decision the OSI board takes, we should already be asking developers to check their projects against the OSAiD, to get a more detailed view of the size of “niche” the definition creates _and_ ask the Open Source community _(\*)_ if they would accept the Ai systems that were validated as compliant with the four principles of freedom.

This validation has already been made in the [beginning of the process [1]](https://opensource.org/blog/towards-a-definition-of-open-artificial-intelligence-first-meeting-recap), by others [[2]](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.06550) [[3]](http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04844) [[4]](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.13784), and presently can also be asserted, up to a certain point, with the [Model Openness Tool (MoT) [5]](https://isitopen.ai/) and complemented with the [Foundation Model Transparency Index [6]](https://crfm.stanford.edu/fmti/May-2024/index.html), but I do not know if any analysis from the Open Source community _(\*)_ at large was made over those systems.

> **references**
>
> [1] [Towards a definition of “Open Artificial Intelligence”: First meeting recap – Open Source Initiative](https://opensource.org/blog/towards-a-definition-of-open-artificial-intelligence-first-meeting-recap)  
> [2] Z. Liu _et al._, ‘LLM360: Towards Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMs’, Dec. 11, 2023, _arXiv_: arXiv:2312.06550. doi: [10.48550/arXiv.2312.06550](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.06550).  
> [3] I. Solaiman, ‘The Gradient of Generative AI Release: Methods and Considerations’, Feb. 05, 2023, _arXiv_: arXiv:2302.04844. Accessed: Oct. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: [[2302.04844] The Gradient of Generative AI Release: Methods and Considerations](http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04844)  
> [4] M. White, I. Haddad, C. Osborne, X.-Y. L. Yanglet, A. Abdelmonsef, and S. Varghese, ‘The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency, and Usability in Artificial Intelligence v5’, Oct. 02, 2024, _arXiv_: arXiv:2403.13784. doi: [10.48550/arXiv.2403.13784](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.13784).  
> [5] [https://isitopen.ai/](https://isitopen.ai/)  
> [6] [Foundation Model Transparency Index](https://crfm.stanford.edu/fmti/May-2024/index.html)

_(\*) I know the term “Open Source community” is too vague, and open to wild interpretations, but I wouldn’t know who to name and I’m certain the OSI could bring together experts in the FLOSS field  
from the many communities of thought and practice to give their opinion._

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653)._