I'm presently in Oakland, California at the Ranked Choice Voting
Summit 2018, where FairVote California's Director Jennifer Pae has
pointed out this excellent resource from the U.S. national Alliance
for Justice designed to answer questions about what kind of advocacy
nonprofit organizations can and can not -- and should and should not
-- engage in:
https://bolderadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Connection-4th-Ed…
https://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/bolder-advocacy
I suggest that these recommendations -- literally designed, as the
title says, for being bold -- are useful guidance for determining
which aspects of the Foundation's Mission should be subjects of
Foundation advocacy, beyond copyright law and the like. I am well
aware that there is a vocal minority who believe that many aspects of
the Mission are not worthy of our advocacy efforts, but I continue to
believe in the results of my in-person and on-line surveys of
Wikimedians suggesting about 80% of us want to support the whole
Mission, not just a few niche and adjunct aspects of it.
I welcome debate on my pending recommendation, that movement leaders
need to advocate for policies which directly support the informed,
healthy, and abundant availability of community volunteers. E.g., that
the Executive Director resume regular periodic correspondence with
donors on other ways they can support the movement, beyond copyright
and internet law advocacy that the Foundation traditionally supports
directly and indirectly. I hope we can keep personality, nationality,
and related issues out of such debate.
Best regards,
Jim