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