<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Letting Donors Vote for Board Members</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sean Stannard-Stockton</title>
		<link>http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members#comment-2984</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Stannard-Stockton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members#comment-2984</guid>
		<description>Ha! You got me. In a &lt;a href="http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/volunteermatch-and-the-social-capital-markets" rel="nofollow"&gt;previous post&lt;/a&gt; I argued to you that how something was framed was important in its own right. But in this post I suggest that nonprofit must do more than frame donations as investments. 

I'd like to think those two statements are not contradictory. I do think that investing is a better frame than donating for nonprofits to approach (many, but not all) donors with. However, I think for that frame to be correct and not just spin, they must follow through in the way I've laid out in the post above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha! You got me. In a <a href="http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/volunteermatch-and-the-social-capital-markets" rel="nofollow">previous post</a> I argued to you that how something was framed was important in its own right. But in this post I suggest that nonprofit must do more than frame donations as investments. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to think those two statements are not contradictory. I do think that investing is a better frame than donating for nonprofits to approach (many, but not all) donors with. However, I think for that frame to be correct and not just spin, they must follow through in the way I&#8217;ve laid out in the post above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: foundationwriter</title>
		<link>http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members#comment-2958</link>
		<dc:creator>foundationwriter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/letting-donors-vote-for-board-members#comment-2958</guid>
		<description>But I thought "investing" was a better way to "frame" it. maybe you should define "social investment."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But I thought &#8220;investing&#8221; was a better way to &#8220;frame&#8221; it. maybe you should define &#8220;social investment.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
