Our mission is somewhat ambiguous

[Ainali]

I believe that our mission is ambiguous. Do we:

1. enable public-purpose (software and policy) that is open and collaborative, or
2. enable (public-purpose software) and (policy that is open and collaborative)

While I think we want to say 1. the way we have written it makes it sound like 2. Especially when reading it out loud, it's easy a small pause because of the "and" naturally gets inserted.

A simple solution could be:

To enable public-purpose software and policy – that is open and collaborative.

Other solutions might be to change the order of the words more fundamentally.

[ericherman]

Indeed. While not catchy, a longer sentence would likely be more clear.

[clausmullie]

I personally like

a) We help people collaborate openly on public-purpose software and policy 

As it puts people first, is a bit more active, and puts the emphasis on open collaboration which to me is more than just being open and just being collaborative

Alternative could be

b) We help people collaborate in the open on public-purpose software and policy 

Closer to the original could be

c) We enable public-purpose software and policy become more open and collaborative

[Ainali]

Of these I like c) the most because it is more clear that it is not only working-in-the-open, which one could do with a closed-source codebase, but also more clearly go towards the open definition.

[ericherman]

I like the spirit of c), minor grammar nit: I think "become" should be "to become"