This clearly mandates a framework that poses questions about the characteristics of the project, whose answer would shed light on the eventual million dollar question "How much will this project contribute towards improving the standard of living of the overall community". If the answers reveal that the project fails to offer good returns towards the larger goal for the time and effort the team may invest, the project should be ruthlessly rejected irrespective of the "feel good" factor it may offer.
How do we define the framework and how do we demarcate its boundaries? Well, I feel it has to evolve. And the first version of this framework should be defined based, partly on whatever experience we have, and on crude opinions. But DEFINE THE FRAMEWORK. If its contents are not backed up by reason and facts, let the mistakes we initially make bring it to the surface. If we don't want to be just another movement that never took off, the next critical step to take is, every time we choose to implement a project REMEMBER THE FRAMEWORK. Every time we complete a project REFINE THE FRAMEWORK!