Great questions.  

1) I feel like the OSI has historically focused too much on software and software licencing.  Of course, these are its roots.  I would like to see OSI be more engaged in open source beyond software.  For example, I LOVE that OSI is partnering with Brandeis University to offer a Master's program in open source management.  HUGE! I'd like to see more like this, particularly because I come from an academic research perspective on open source strategy.  I wrote a similar program a few years ago and I've been in talk with several Canadian universities about putting it in place.  I teach open source strategy as complementary to traditional (horribly out of date!) business strategy, with a focus on open organization principles (See Jim Whitehurst's book), ethical business, ethical competition, all of which align to form an open source strategy-driven competitive advantage.  There are similar opportunities to integrate open source with other disciplines and I'd love to see OSI curating these synergy opportunities for advancement of social good from many different angles.

2) Yes. I'm aligned with Josh Simmons (vote for him!) in this respect.  I'd like to see the board less involved in the day to day and more paid positions put in place to help the OSI scale up in its commitments to members and to expand on its mandate.  The most tractable way to do this is to open up a third class of membership to corporate support, in the way many other organizations operate.  The clear counterbalance to such a move is to make it explicitly clear in that these members do NOT have weight proportional to their size or financial influence.  I'm, however, completely fine with corporations leveraging branding benefits from their membership.  The OSI emerged by recognizing that organizations CAN be ethical corporate citizens if guided in how to do so.  For example, B-corp certification has gone a long way towards helping organizations have clean, actionable checklists they can incorporate into their structure to improve their support of all stakeholders, including the general public and social welfare as a whole.  The OSI can use corporate support to scale up its mission along this front, all while maintaining and advancing open principles.  With some careful thought, I feel that this approach can strike a healthy balance from which all OSI stakeholders benefit.

3) I don't think the OSI (or most organizations) has this choice.  Change is the only constant.  Stability is about knowing how to be continuously adaptive to change.  Discontinuous, waterfall-like change is problematic in every industry.  It cannot be "stabilized" against.  Rather, by preparing for change, and expecting it, we ride the waves, and become stronger along the way.  You "stabilize" change by learning how to surf the waves.  Further, change is desired.  Growth is change.  And change is necessary for growth.  We want to do better at delivering on our mission. We can do better. So change is not only the constant reality, it should be desired.  To borrow, only semi-ironically, from our childhoods, "To infinity and beyond!"

4) My instinct is to respond, "Why does the OSI have to do anything?"  We are at a place today that some of the OSI's initial mandate has already been delivered, such that exactly this very thing is happening without the need for it to be curated in a hands-on fashion.  That was unthinkable in 1998!  I think it's a win!   Institutions are defined, in part, as the things we do that we don't question; they just are.  That nobody knows what the OSI is nor what "open source" is, but does it anyways, means that we have successfully (to a degree) institutionalized "open".  And I love that! So I would leave it be where it isn't a problem.  And I'd focus on the problems.  What parts of those communities are underserved?  What can we do to create /more/ of those collaborative communities?  How can we scale and more widely distribute the benefits of those efforts? Institutional theory tells us that institutions can sometimes become the "solutions" to the very problems that they "create" after they have already delivered on their initial purpose by trying to remain "relevant".  The OSI should be careful to "get out of its own way" in this respect and not intervene where things are working as desired (even if sub-optimally).  Rather, let's look at mandates adjacent to the core mandates and figure out if it makes sense to expand in those directions and focus on those areas that are still in "open" institutional nascency.

5) In the early days of the OSI (late 90s and early 2000s), we still suffered a lot from exclusionary, faux meritocratic, "you're not good enough to be one of us" in open source communities.  I didn't feel welcome.  I spent DECADES proving that I was "good enough" and that the approach that I take to open source (joining business theory research to engineering management) not only makes sense but is actually VALUABLE.  The Red Hat acquisition for $34B by IBM opened a lot of eyes to the reality I saw 20 years ago and vindicated that open source strategy is absolutely a real and effective business strategy.  Even 2-3 years ago I was laughed at and told that I was wasting my time. Some of the top and most powerful people in some of the best-known open source communities told me to my face "you can't make money with open source; open source will always be a charity model. You don't know what you're talking about".  Long story short, I want to give my hours to the OSI so that NOBODY IS EVER TREATED LIKE THIS AGAIN.  It makes me sick to think that the next person who thinks a decade ahead of us will get told "you're just to YOUNG to understand; you're naive; you haven't submitted hundreds of bug reports yet so you don't GET IT; you're just a woman; you don't have commit access; you don't have kernel modules in production; and on and on and on" as a way to be excluded from our community until someone in power does it first.  And I faced these things with the privilege of being a straight, cis, white dude.  No wonder we have a serious representation problem in tech.  So many other people got this shit so much worse.
 If we want to keep growing, we need to be empowering people with different ideas, not trying to keep pushing our own, already established ideas. It's my JOB to use my privilege to enable that.  Now, after 20 years of that shit, that I've "made it" (and I'm well supported at IBM), that's why I want to put hours into the OSI.  Because, like many of the other excellent candidates in this election, I believe we can and MUST do better.

6) I'm not uncomfortable answering this or other related questions.  I think we HAVE to talk about these things, ESPECIALLY where we disagree.  I haven't taken a hard stance on the ethical software discussion (though I have been reading them!) because I recognized, first and foremost, that I didn't know enough to take a stance.  That's why I made that one of my election commitments: Rather than taking a hard stance on a bunch of things, I commit to being influenced by reason and switching positions as and when new evidence is presented to me that results in the stronger argument for a different course of action.  That's the way of science.  I follow the (debated) evidence and will always change my mind if new evidence shifts the balance.  I worry a lot more about candidates in ANY election who are stuck on a position and say that their minds will never sway.  That's called zealotry (a term that has been used in reference to some participants in some Free/Libre/Open Source communities; I have stories...).  I am not a zealot.  I follow reason and reason-driven discourse.  Therefore, to answer the question more directly, I believe the OSI's relationship to a theoretical Ethical Software Initiative (And the FSF, LF, etc.) should be as close as possible and as collaborative as possible.  Even if our Venn diagram of perspectives on ethics or mission or best practices to move forward do not overlap wholly, we should absolutely collaborate on the very large areas where we DO overlap.  Our "enemies" as it were, laugh at us as their overlap is non-existent.  Let's pool our resources to address the "great evils" before the "reasonable-people-can-disagree" divergences inside our communities.  

I will take a position on one thing as it is within my area of expertise: copyright law.  Copyright law was already a kludge when applied to software.  It was never drafted for that purpose.  As we now all well know, the DMCA only made it worse.  Copyleft's approach was a creative way to turn the tables, as it were, and use a hammer a different way for a different purpose.  My inclination with what I've read about the ethical software debates is that copyright law is even LESS intended for the purposes to which it is attempting to be put and, therefore, there will be diminishing returns in effectiveness in achieving the desired goal (the jury is still out on if copyleft has even achieved its core goals vs. other approaches that could have been taken in 1985 such as, for example, effective lobbying for net-new laws specifically written for software), while also increasing costs and effort require to shape copyright for this additional order of magnitude away from its initial purpose.  There are very solid reasons to believe that the likely result will be net-negative for all involved, especially the most vulnerable and that the unintended consequences will only embolden the bad actors who, as we see around the world, treat laws, as a whole, as "optional", with impunity.  Nuances of copyright application in "grass roots" communities are so far off the radar of bad actors that trying to rein them in with it is not where I would focus our efforts.  Rather, there are lengthy discussions to be had about how to address bad actors from a socio-economic perspective.

That being said, I am open to having my mind changed on this (and any!) position.

Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful debate!