Without being prompted for anything other than an introduction, at least two Open Source Initiative board members expressed their wish that the OSI should become a membership-based organization.
It's almost as if they were in a hurry to get it out in the open although there is no consensus in favor of it yet. (Unlike the OSI, the Free Software Foundation already is membership-based.)
The fact that the OSI is not membership based allows the organization to make unpopular decisions on behalf of the whole "Open Source" trademark.
The OSI is willing to extend the olive branch to the likes of Microsoft, granting the benefit of the doubt, even while there is no doubt that Microsoft is actively attacking software freedom.
Likewise, Microsoft is willing to engage the OSI as well because they know the OSI is more receptive to Microsoft than the Free Software Foundation.
The other odd thing was how the woman who gave the introduction volunteered information about a new OSI board member from Africa.
She said the new board member was still feeling bruised after participating in OOXML process. So, what does it take to gain a seat on the OSI board? I'm not sure, but apparently, advocacy for OOXML doesn't hurt your chances much.
What was most strange to me was watching one OSI board member taking the liberty of mentioning another board member's bruised feelings to a camera, unsolicited.
I thought the Open Source brand was supposed to be more presentable, formal, media-savvy, on message, and polished than the FSF. That's not what this video conveyed.
It's all a bit odd and confusing, which doesn't surprise me, considering the cognitive dissonance the OSI was founded upon.