Comments on Josh Simmons
Last modified by Patrick Masson on 2020/04/01 16:09
- Manage
- Copy
- Actions
- Export
- Print Preview
- Viewers
- Source
- Siblings
- Content
- Attachments (1)
- History
- Information
- Likes
Export
Choose the export format from the list below:
$services.rendering.render($uix.execute(), 'html/5.0')
$services.rendering.render($uix.execute(), 'html/5.0')
$services.rendering.render($uix.execute(), 'html/5.0')
- Office Formats (3)
-
Export as Open Document Text (ODT) format using the Office Server
-
Export as Portable Document Format (PDF) using the Web Browser
-
Export as Rich Text Format (RTF) using the Office Server
-
- Other Formats (1)
-
Export as HyperText Markup Language (HTML)
-
Hi, Josh- I’m asking variations of these to all candidates, trying to edit out the questions that are obviously already answered by your position statement. Apologies if I missed something and asked something already answered! Apologies also for the length, but given the importance of the moment in open source generally and for OSI specifically, I think it is appropriate to go into some depth.
Thanks in advance for answering, and thanks for putting forth a thoughtful case for your candidacy.
Oh, this is a wonderful set of questions. Thank you! I'll reply to each in a separate comment to allow for useful threading if needed.
1) If OSI could do only one thing, what would it be?
OSI is uniquely positioned insofar as it convenes projects, foundations (c3s and c6s), user groups, for-profits, free software purists, activists, governments, educational institutions, developers, lawyers, and everyone in between, around our shared interests. For all the things I'd love to see OSI do, the single most important thing is to serve as a forum that convenes all these disparate stakeholders around shared understandings of open source and licensing.
3) If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?
With apologies, I think there's a third option here I think OSI should be a stabilizing force within our existing communities, while being an agent of change by bringing new people and organizations into the fold. That is not to say that OSI shouldn't evolve in response to community needs, it should. But I don't view OSI as the vanguard within open source, there are other communities and organizations that are better suited to that work.
4) 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?
OSI should support them, bring them into the fold, and encourage them to continue making open source their own. OSI should _not_ "correct" them or "well actually it's about licensing." In order to do this, we should continue partnering with educators, companies, and infrastructure providers so that there are many ways to discover the work we do. And we should invite them to get involved with OSI and the broader open source community.
5) 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?
I originally joined the board in 2016 because I didn't feel like the communities I represent had a seat at the table, because I didn't feel like technical writers, designers, and community managers were adequately valued as contributors, because open source has the same representation issues the tech industry has (but amplified), and because I saw that independent maintainers and contributors were being disadvantaged as open source gained ever more momentum within for-profits.
Those are all still motivators for me. But now I'm an "old hand," having spent 4 years on the board and held numerous officer roles, drafted budgets and financial projects, and cobbled together an organizational development plan.
Now I understand OSI's operations and the challenges it faces. As such, I'm the best positioned individual to lead OSI through the transformation that everyone agrees it needs-from being volunteer-driven to being volunteer-advised, with just enough staff to deliver on all of its core operational duties without volunteer labor.
Given that, I feel like it'd be negligent of me if I didn't take this opportunity to serve one final term on the board and see this work through.
6) If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI’s relationship to it be?
OSI's relationship to a theoretical ESI should be just the same as it's relationship to, say, Conservancy or the Linux Foundation. We should give ESI a seat they can pull up to the table along with everyone else, honor our differences, and work together on our shared interests.
Thank you for standing. When a goal is stated to become "volunteer-supervised but staff-driven" and to work on "staffing the organization", the voters are being implicitly asked whether they want to increase the expenses of OSI. However, you don't mention increasing the income. What successful models do you think the OSI could keep in mind? For instance, is the Linux Foundation one?