The "co-design" process is literally the "Do Your Own Research" of technical standards (https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4):

"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."

Not that they're practicing what they preach anyway - there's only one voice that matters and that's the OSI's Executive Director (https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consens...):

"We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."

Not only does he lack the expertise, he's building an AI using llama and marketing it as "Open Source"

The guy has an interest in the definition failing. If it doesn't he won't be able to market his AI as Open Source.

Ah yes, because bringing in experts who have allegiances to the very same organizations you wish to legislate has worked amazingly so far. And again, you’re utterly failing to provide an actual argument that properly references anything within the article. Instead you continue to sidestep the issue by attacking his credibility and not his points. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have a proper refutation that the OSI are woefully incompetent and are not suited to be in charge of the future of OS AI?