I would suggest some modifications to point 2.2, where accessibility and inclusivity receive greater emphasis compared to demographic representation.
original (v1):
2.2. Increase community diversity
OSM has started out as a very technically oriented project. This is reflected in the composition of the community, where tech-savvy western contributors still make up the majority of the community. For OSM to accurately describe the world, we need to strive for a contributor base that accurately reflects the population. We strive for this with full knowledge the we are impacted by economical, cultural and political factors beyond our ability to fix. Contributing to OSM still has a high barrier of entry because of the steep learning curve for entering data as well as entering the community. This makes OSM less approachable in particular for people who are less technically oriented, have little spare time, insufficient access to high-end technology or do not speak English.
proposed (v2):
(proposed)
2.2. Promoting Community Diversity and Inclusivity
OSM originated as a project rooted in technical foundations, which is evident in the community composition with a dominance of technically proficient Western contributors. It’s crucial for us that the OSM community represents the diversity of the global population more broadly, not just geographically, but also culturally, linguistically, by age, and gender. We recognize the external economic, cultural, and political factors that influence our endeavors in this direction. We acknowledge the current challenges in contributing to OSM - such as the need for technical knowledge, little spare time, communication predominantly in English, and the complexities of joining the community. We are committed to addressing these barriers, ensuring OSM is accessible and inclusive for all.
Some comments for the original(v1)
1.) “Increase community diversity”"
IMHO, it would be better to include “inclusivity,” hinting at a broader, more encompassing approach beyond just increasing numbers.
2.) “where tech-savvy western contributors still make up the majority of the community.”
IMHO, we should describe the project’s origins and its current state in a way that doesn’t sound critical.
3.) “For OSM to accurately describe the world, we need to strive for a contributor base that accurately reflects the population.”
In my opinion, this should be clearer about what diversity means for the OSM community. However, please don’t set a quota or KPI based on this number, as some might take it literally and want to make contributors out of even babies.
IMHO: the correct strategy focus would be:
ensuring OSM is accessible and inclusive for all
instead of " a contributor base that accurately reflects the population."
in other words: I prefer: a welcoming and open environment for everyone.
instead of a more specific (and possibly numeric) representation of the world’s demographics,