Hi, John- 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.

1. 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.)
2. 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?
3. If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?
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?
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?
6. 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.)

Thanks in advance for answering, and thanks for putting forth a thoughtful case for your candidacy.

Thanks for your questions. Here are my thoughts.
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.)

I think OSI plays an important role in licensing guidance. There are tricky issues surrounding AWS offering of open source products as a service and how that impacts companies who offer open source software but also depend on enterprise revenues to advance the product. I think OSI should be looking at new kinds of licenses that address this issue. 

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?

As a newcomer, I don't have a sense of the balance between advice and day to day assistance. In general, the Board needs to provide advice to management while acting as a check on OSI activities. It should not be day to day. 

If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?

I tend to being a stabilizing force but OSI should support new efforts to evolve the model and make it more widespread. 

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?

This is, of course, a marketing question. OSI should continue to spread the word and get involved in more regional conferences promoting the mission. 

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?

A good question. I have a sense of the power that open source can bring to the world (a small sense probably) and want to contribute to the cause in my later years. I just believe in community service after working so many years on a business mission. And, my current passion is around legal open source software to improve access to justice worldwide. Feel free to vote for others and I will continue what I am doing. But willing to help if I can. 

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.)

I am not a fan of these attempts to control behavior. Sure, many of the goals are good but I don't believe you can reasonably legislate worldwide activities through software licenses and I see this as a distraction. Global warming?  Gun control? Protecting labor rights? All are good causes but I would have to be convinced that these initiatives should be part of the OSI agenda. The problem comes when you start down the slope. It's not easy to stop.