I’m not suggesting to change this at this point in time, but I would note that
“The OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF) is the legal entity that officially owns the assets of the project.”
might be considered slightly misleading, as what the assets are is probably not going to be clear to 3rd parties (actually I’m fairly sure that it isn’t clear to a majority of the community).
Further minor point in this context: either you own something or you don’t, what this probably wants to convey is likely “that holds the assets on behalf of the community” or similar.
I would definitely not phrase it this way. Though I see potential problem, I am aware of very misguided attempts, in various contexts, at achieving equality/equity/uniformity/lack of differences etc by destroying what worked well. It is much easier to achieve lack of divergences by ruining working stuff and keeping everyone uniformly down.
I would understand this in following way: it would be much better for OSM if it would have as big (proportionally) and dedicated and active and helpful community across world as it has in Germany.
Though achieving it in say Yemen, China, North Korea, Russia or Burundi has very big challenges that are beyond ability of OSM community or OSMF to overcome.
For example, median income in Burundi (by some statistics the poorest country in the world) IIRC is about 540 euro. Per year. In such case typical person is unlikely to have free time of hobbies like OpenStreetMap.
But in many places situation is not as bad, and even in say China/Burundi/Russia some things can be done. For Noth Korea remote mapping is possible and also has some benefits even if typical on the ground survey range from problematic and not advisable to suicidal and terrible idea.
I though about improving this sentences but I had no idea for clear improvements.
Exactly, no one is eager to kick people from well-represented backgrounds out of the project or to stop more of them from joining. The goal is to also bring in people from underrepresented backgrounds who share the same enthusiasm and dedication.
Even though the main intentions are positive, there can be unintended negative outcomes. Our goal should be to reduce these unintended negative consequences.
In my opinion:
Some in the OSM community support a Diversity Quota, while others do not. It’s essential to discuss, clarify, and make this transparent. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity around Diversity Quota or excessive diversity expectations might have negatively impacted this year’s SOTM conference. One nominee failed due to LGBTQ+ safety criteria, and Kosovo was disadvantaged for being European.
There’s evidence suggesting that an OSM community can face challenges because it’s located in Europe, regardless of its development level (low GDP per capita compared to past OSM conference locations) or unique cultural identity (as the only European Muslim country).
I believe that a good diversity and inclusion strategy can’t exist without transparency.
The OSMF strategy should provide clear guidance for working groups and local communities on how transparent their decisions should be and how to apply diversity and inclusion criteria. If a group wants to use a diversity quota for an application, they should make it clear from the start.
So, the main question we need to answer is:
How do we promote diversity and inclusion without compromising other essential values?
I think, in addition to diversity quotas, it’s worth exploring forced cooperation. This would mean that application guidelines by working groups would encourage communities to cooperate with OSM communities from different continents and cultures, creating a win-win situation. However, if the dominant community feels like they only lose from diversity, it can cause even more division, which should be avoided. In my opinion, a poorly thought-out diversity strategy can hurt the community more than it helps.
PS:
The rules for using diversity quotas vary from country to country. It’s crucial to research thoroughly before the OSM Foundation runs into any unwanted legal troubles.
Disclaimer: I’m a European male with a GitHub account (tech-savvy), and I’m genuinely confused about how some OSM working groups apply diversity quotas. If they do, it should be transparent and ethical.
Restructure governance to be more equitable: an example of this would be committing to Board Seat allocation for OSMF members who are women and non-binary, and who are citizens of Low and Middle Income Countries.
I understood this as demanding quotas at OSMF board.
This is my understanding as well. Equitable translates to equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. I don’t see how this could be interpreted any other way. I am someone who wants to see more representation from people in the Global South. Arnalie is an excellent start, and I feel more people could follow her example successfully without necessarily mandating seats to be set aside for regions.
One has a better chance of global representation when there is a strong local community behind you, and I think that explains the overrepresentation of Western Europe and the United States better than anything else, so strengthening local communities in other countries should be a key goal, would be good for the board to lend financial support when feasible.
It’s been a while since that petition was circulated, but my impression is that it wasn’t necessarily about taking an existing board seat and reserving it exclusively for one region or demographic. That demand could be satisfied by adding a board seat, though in practical terms, that would still dilute the power of at-large seats. In any case, it was framed as an illustrative example, and doesn’t appear to be part of the current strategic plan draft, so this strikes me as a strawman argument against the draft.
Even if used as an illustrative example, the fact it was included demonstrates there are people willing to consider that as a possible means avenue towards achieving their representation goals.
Any form of quota for board seats, be they new seats or existing seats, would, in practice, require an amendment to the AOA with 75% approval of the members. This is not likely to happen. Still, the example does show that some people support quotas, even if it’s likely far less than the percentage required to implement quotas.
Do we know that the inclusion of “strive for a contributor base that accurately reflects the population” in the proposed strategic plan is intended as a response to that petition? There’s a limit to how relevant a years-old petition’s particulars can be in the context of this conversation. Perhaps you disagree with the petition, yet can a compromise still be found that aspires to some vision of diversity, or are we basically resigned to the status quo? I thought @ImreSamu had a good idea about encouraging broader outreach, which needn’t stoke fears of a loss of influence among well-represented constituencies.
I support current draft proposal, including desire for wider participation in OpenStreetMap (with awareness that there are external limitations that cannot be fully overcome by OSM and OSMF).
I support actions toward wider community participating in OpenStreetMap. I participated in some activities motivated by this. Though these were not about diversity focused on skin colour.
For putting more requirements on how Working Groups are obligated to work (“forced cooperation” mentioned earlier) has risk that putting more regulations will just cause people to contribute to something else.
Broader outreach in general makes sense, I am currently planning something that can be treated as such (we will see how well it will go).
Given all the discussion, we made one change to make more clear the intention of increasing diversity.
From
For OSM to accurately describe the world, strive for a contributor base that accurately reflects the population.
to
For OSM to accurately describe the world, we strive for our contributors to include as many people as possible with as many different backgrounds as possible.
It’s possible this won’t address everything that is being read into increasing community diversity, but think it’s more than sufficient at this point.
