​True, but mailling list submissions are going to be more subjective again, and fairly useless at measuring progress over time ("Rants per second are down 20% this quarter!"). Most disgruntled people silently disengage once they reach a certain point, and for most people that point is before they launch a public rant. Not all of us are Tristan.

So what do we want to measure? Broadly put, I'd like to see the Foundation measure its own effectiveness both in terms of specific goals that it sets itself and at serving the needs of its members. That can be decomposed as much as we want, I'd suggest measurement at the following levels 

- the organisation as a whole,

- the board

- individual Foundation programs or the various committees

These groups set themselves objectives and priorities. How did they go at a achieving them, and how does the membership feel about that performance?

The elections provide a useful level of feedback of course, but in a very coarse way.

Roland​