[Foundation-l] Policy governance ends

[Thomas Dalton]

> I don't understand this email. For one thing, there are many different
> "ends," "goals," "objectives," or what have you. Rather than picking a random
> number--four in this case--you might want to consider identifying numerous  "ends"
> and prioritizing them.

You can't prioritise the ends until you know what they are. The email
was asking people for their ideas on what the ends should be.

> For instance, in a worst-case scenario that there is only limited funds to
> adequately cover server costs/bandwidth or wikimania, it remains for the board
> to decide whether it should forego one, or alternately, split costs and do a
> half-assed job with both. By the way, this isn't so far from the truth. If
> there  are multiple ends, some, while important, will always have to be put
> aside  because of other pressing needs. It is not just ends, but priorities.

Absolutely true, but that's the next step, not the first one.

> That said, I would say that the foremost "end" is financial sustainability.
> How much money is needed for minimal operations? Is that coming in? Are the
> sources dependable? Are there alternatives if a source is cut off? What new,
> untapped sources are there?

That's not an end, it's a means to an end (well, all the ends, really).

> Next I would look at the legal requirements. How are we in securing our
> assets? What else needs to be done? How are we at compliance with government
> regulations for not for profits? What can be improved?

Complying with the law would be a good end.