[srawls]

...here are my concerns about using language like, "needed," ...

What if it's not? While I firmly believe that this can be an amazingly useful resource to many teams, I've been wrong before. I'm hesitant to say this is "needed" because it's a bit more pompous and arrogant than we can afford to be at this juncture, or, so I think. Though, maybe "unique" isn't the best word, either.

Ok, I see your point. Also, the services we provide may be helpful, but that doesn’t necessarily make them needed either. I’m open to suggestions for a better word.

...by self-sustaining, I was trying to imply that this effort would ensure its own existence by contributing to teams, which, in turn, would donate their own resources back to the effort in some capacity. Maybe it's unclear as is, and it could be entirely unnecessary.

I see what you mean now, however, I don’t know if the mission statement is the best place for it. Maybe we could have a page on the website which describes FreelanceFIRST in more detail than the mission statement, and we could put this there?

FIRST is only the beginning, and, in the same vein as your previous argument, I don't want the Mission Statement to be so severely limiting. This 'clause,' if you will, indicates the potential for much more varied involvement in programs in the future.

Hrmm … perhaps this is a case of differing views of what FreelanceFIRST is (and if that is the case, then that is exactly why we write a mission statement in the first place). I always got the impression that FreelanceFIRST would cater to FIRST teams, and focus all its efforts on that. I don’t mean to say I wouldn’t like to help everyone, but I think FreelanceFIRST could better do its job if it focuses on only FIRST teams (I’ve seen too many projects become bloated and unmanageable by trying to accomplish too much). Of course, I certainly don’t hold any weight in making decisions, so if you want FreelanceFIRST to eventually expand and be involved with other programs in the future, I don’t have a problem with keeping in “all people.”

Aside from what I mentioned previously, the only other thing I dislike about this is the use of the word 'enrich' twice. That's easily fixed, though.

This is the only point of yours I disagree on. I don’t quite understand why everyone hates to use a word more than once—if it is the right word, then it should be used. I like how now it ends one sentence with “FreelanceFIRST seeks to … enrich the FIRST community,” and starts the next sentence explaining exactly how: “We seek to enrich the community by …” But, I'm flexible on this--if you have a better word, by all means use it.

Stephen