Q1. If OSI could do only one thing, what would it be? (Obviously it can do more, but not much more, so I’d love to understand your #1 priority for the org.)

A1. Educate the different stakeholders about FOSS. It is rather clear to people talking to potential users outside the FOSS ecosystem – which happen to be 95% of all users – that even when they are using FOSS they do not know FOSS almost at all, and therefore do not realize and leverage all the intrinsic advantages (apart from the fact that they do not pay for the license). FOSS is rather difficult to understand for people used to proprietary software, who have been "miseducated" though massive communication strategies. Of course, part of these strategies is also the ignorance about Android being based on the Linux kernel, and iOS being based on FreeBSD.

Q2. Should OSI move towards a board that advises more and does (on a day-to-day basis) less? If so, what will you do to help bring about that change? If not, why not?

A2. I do not see an alternative to a board that advises, as BoD members do not have enough bandwidth to manage all tasks. I can help the change by leveraging my management experience in large IT companies and PR agencies (where I was responsible for up to 700 people in over 40 offices around the world). So, I know how to manage people in rather diverse environments, to achieve the expected results.

Q3. If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?
A3. Both. OSI must be an agent of change for the FOSS ecosystem, to follow and support the natural evolution of the different FOSS constituents, and at the same time must ensure that the evolution is stable under the umbrella of the OSD.

Q4. 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 have literally no idea what OSI is or what it does?

A4. Educate, educate, educate. And, at the end of the process, educate again, as the situation will have evolved. History has demonstrated that the most important innovations have happened in educated environments, and the fact that there are people dealing with OSS who ignore OSI confirms that we are not in an educated environment. Unfortunately, this unfortunate situation is not involving just FOSS but most activities in many different sectors.

Q5. You have 24 hours in the day, and are talented enough to do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI?

A5. I am 65 (soon 66). I think that when you reach seniority and you are still in good shape to contribute, you have to share your experience with younger people to help them shape their future. I am involved full time in the LibreOffice project, where I am increasing the amount of time devoted to develop the community and motivate others to become LibreOffice/ODF evangelists. Extending the activity to the wider FOSS community by doing something similar at OSI (what I have done during my previous three year term, from 2016 to 2019) sounds like a good way to invest my time.

Q6. If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI’s relationship to it be? (If you’re uncomfortable answering this about ethical software, consider instead answering with regards to the FSF or LF, or another hypothetical institution that to some extent competes with OSI for resources and influence.)

A6. I think we cannot associate something like the "ethical software initiative", which is clearly trying to disrupt the OSD, with FSF or LF. So, I will handle the two questions separately. In the case of the "ethical software initiative", I think that OSI should reaffirm the values of the OSD – which is already covering most ethical issues related to FOSS licenses – and educate people who have different opinions about the OSD to improve their understanding of the bigger picture. The "ethical software initiative" seems to be targeted at specific companies, who are using FOSS for business purposes, without giving back to FOSS projects. In these cases, I do not think that clauses can solve the issue, especially at the risk of disrupting the entire FOSS ecosystem. So, I would like to see a different approach based on mutual understanding, which could happen under OSI stewardship (and will request an awful amount of time). FSF and/or LF cannot be considered OSI competitors, even if they might have partially different agendas. I think that only a coordinated approach by all FOSS related organizations can help the ecosystem to thrive. In my opinion, discussions about the invisible differences between "free" and "open" should have never started, and have not been beneficial for the reputation and the awareness of the entire ecosystem.