Start Group Report 2009-11 - Revision history

Jacky at 10:08, 3 December 2019

2019-12-03T10:08:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 3 December 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:

	<br><br>		<br><br>
	Back to [[Freegle Start~~\|Freegle Start]]~~ or to [[Start Group Report 2009-10]] or [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br> </blockquote>		Back to Freegle Start or to [[Start Group Report 2009-10]] or [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br> </blockquote>
	<br>		<br>

	[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]		[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]

Jacky at 20:03, 26 March 2012

2012-03-26T20:03:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 26 March 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==== November 16th 2009<br> ====		==== November 16th 2009<br> ====

	SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/123 123]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/277 277]<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK~~<br>~~Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.~~<br>~~yahoo.com/group/freegle- ~~start~~/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>		SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/123 123]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/277 277]<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/freegle-growth/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>

	=== <br>Topics covered during this period..<br> ===		=== <br>Topics covered during this period..<br> ===

Jacky at 10:40, 20 March 2011

2011-03-20T10:40:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:40, 20 March 2011
Line 34:		Line 34:
	<blockquote>        It was asked if the start up team had standard groups settings that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. </blockquote><blockquote>Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team.<br></blockquote>		<blockquote>        It was asked if the start up team had standard groups settings that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. </blockquote><blockquote>Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team.<br></blockquote>
	==== Group overlap ====		==== Group overlap ====
	<blockquote>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to ~~next report~~ [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br> </blockquote>		<blockquote>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>

			<br><br>
			Back to [[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or to [[Start Group Report 2009-10]] or [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br> </blockquote>
	<br>		<br>

	[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]		[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]

Dorothyjeanquinn at 22:16, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T22:16:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 13 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>

	==== November 16th 2009<br> ====		==== November 16th 2009<br> ====

	SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- ~~people~~/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>		SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Start/message/123 123]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Start/message/277 277]<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- start/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>

	=== <br>Topics covered during this period..<br> ===		=== <br>Topics covered during this period..<br> ===
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	====  New group applications. ====		====  New group applications. ====

	*Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be decided upon.		*Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be decided upon.
	* New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups now needs an expanded remit.		* New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups now needs an expanded remit.
	*It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups.<br>		*It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups.<br>
	*Again all the questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in limbo.		*Again all the questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in limbo.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	==== Which questions needed to be answered first <br> ====		==== Which questions needed to be answered first <br> ====
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br> </blockquote><blockquote>
	Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br>		*17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this assumption correct?
	</blockquote><blockquote>		*18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle Yahoo groups
	*17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this assumption correct?		*19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle My Freecycle groups
	*18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle Yahoo groups		*20) Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When should that thinking time be over?
	*19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle My Freecycle groups		*The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.
	*20) Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When should that thinking time be over?		*21) When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be contacted and given one last chance to move?
	*The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.		*22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they were the same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never planning to move or is unfriendly.
	*21) When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be contacted and given one last chance to move?
	*22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they were the same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never planning to move or is unfriendly.
	*23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will force an automatic no result to this question )		*23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will force an automatic no result to this question )

	<br>		<br>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	==== Starting a group<br> ====		==== Starting a group<br> ====
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	*What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go in to help out etc?<br>		*What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go in to help out etc?<br>
			It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible. </blockquote>
			====  Group Settings ====
			<blockquote>        It was asked if the start up team had standard groups settings that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. </blockquote><blockquote>Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team.<br></blockquote>
			==== Group overlap ====
			<blockquote>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br> </blockquote>
			<br>

	It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible.
	~~</blockquote>~~
	~~====  Group Settings ====~~
	<blockquote>        It was asked if the start up team had standard groups settings that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. </blockquote><blockquote>Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team.<br></blockquote>
	~~==== Group overlap ====~~
	~~<blockquote>~~
	This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br>
	~~</blockquote>~~
	[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]		[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]

	~~<br>~~

Dorothyjeanquinn: Tddy up

2011-02-13T21:07:34Z

Tddy up

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 13 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>November 16th 2009<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- people/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>Topics covered during this period have been.<br>• New group applications.<br>Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and<br>conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be<br>decided upon.<br>• New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups<br>now needs an expanded remit.<br>It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting<br>other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups. Again all the<br>questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over<br>other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some<br>decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in<br>limbo.<br>Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than<br>at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as<br>follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these<br>numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br>17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run<br>Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this<br>assumption correct?<br>18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle Yahoo groups<br>19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle My Freecycle groups<br>20. Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over.<br>When should that thinking time be over?<br>The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be<br>considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.<br>21. When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be<br>contacted and given one last chance to move?<br>22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie<br>not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with<br>other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they<br>were the<br>same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never<br>planning to move or is unfriendly.<br>23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without<br>locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as<br>the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll<br>should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with<br>locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval<br>process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will<br>force an automatic no result to this question )<br>• Starting a group<br>What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go<br>in to help out etc? It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership<br>as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a<br>good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a<br>month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible.<br>• Group Settings<br>It was asked if the start up team had standard groups setting that new groups<br>were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this<br>themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to<br>use certain settings. Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which<br>will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed<br>to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion<br>before passing them to the people team.<br>• Group overlap<br>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is<br>only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group<br>owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they<br>meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap<br>is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have<br>some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br>		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>

			==== November 16th 2009<br> ====

			SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- people/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>

			=== <br>Topics covered during this period..<br> ===
			<blockquote>
			====  New group applications. ====

			*Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be decided upon.
			* New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups now needs an expanded remit.
			*It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups.<br>
			*Again all the questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in limbo.
			</blockquote>
			==== Which questions needed to be answered first <br> ====
			<blockquote>
			Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br>
			</blockquote><blockquote>
			*17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this assumption correct?
			*18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle Yahoo groups
			*19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle My Freecycle groups
			*20) Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When should that thinking time be over?
			*The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.
			*21) When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be contacted and given one last chance to move?
			*22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they were the same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never planning to move or is unfriendly.
			*23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will force an automatic no result to this question )

			<br>
			</blockquote>
			==== Starting a group<br> ====
			<blockquote>
			*What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go in to help out etc?<br>

			It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible.
			</blockquote>
			====  Group Settings ====
			<blockquote>        It was asked if the start up team had standard groups settings that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. </blockquote><blockquote>Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team.<br></blockquote>
			==== Group overlap ====
			<blockquote>
			This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br>
			</blockquote>
	[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]		[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]

			<br>

Dorothyjeanquinn at 19:40, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T19:40:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 13 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>November 16th 2009<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- people/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>Topics covered during this period have been.<br>• New group applications.<br>Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and<br>conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be<br>decided upon.<br>• New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups<br>now needs an expanded remit.<br>It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting<br>other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups. Again all the<br>questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over<br>other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some<br>decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in<br>limbo.<br>Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than<br>at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as<br>follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these<br>numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br>17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run<br>Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this<br>assumption correct?<br>18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle Yahoo groups<br>19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle My Freecycle groups<br>20. Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over.<br>When should that thinking time be over?<br>The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be<br>considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.<br>21. When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be<br>contacted and given one last chance to move?<br>22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie<br>not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with<br>other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they<br>were the<br>same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never<br>planning to move or is unfriendly.<br>23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without<br>locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as<br>the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll<br>should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with<br>locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval<br>process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will<br>force an automatic no result to this question )<br>• Starting a group<br>What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go<br>in to help out etc? It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership<br>as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a<br>good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a<br>month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible.<br>• Group Settings<br>It was asked if the start up team had standard groups setting that new groups<br>were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this<br>themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to<br>use certain settings. Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which<br>will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed<br>to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion<br>before passing them to the people team.<br>• Group overlap<br>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is<br>only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group<br>owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they<br>meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap<br>is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have<br>some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br>		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>November 16th 2009<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277<br>This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK<br>Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups.<br>yahoo.com/group/freegle- people/<br>The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford)<br>Topics covered during this period have been.<br>• New group applications.<br>Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and<br>conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be<br>decided upon.<br>• New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups<br>now needs an expanded remit.<br>It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting<br>other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups. Again all the<br>questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over<br>other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some<br>decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in<br>limbo.<br>Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than<br>at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as<br>follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these<br>numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward.<br>17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run<br>Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this<br>assumption correct?<br>18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle Yahoo groups<br>19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run<br>Freecycle My Freecycle groups<br>20. Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over.<br>When should that thinking time be over?<br>The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be<br>considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result.<br>21. When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be<br>contacted and given one last chance to move?<br>22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie<br>not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with<br>other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they<br>were the<br>same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never<br>planning to move or is unfriendly.<br>23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without<br>locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as<br>the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll<br>should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with<br>locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval<br>process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will<br>force an automatic no result to this question )<br>• Starting a group<br>What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go<br>in to help out etc? It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership<br>as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a<br>good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a<br>month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible.<br>• Group Settings<br>It was asked if the start up team had standard groups setting that new groups<br>were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this<br>themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to<br>use certain settings. Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which<br>will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed<br>to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion<br>before passing them to the people team.<br>• Group overlap<br>This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is<br>only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group<br>owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they<br>meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap<br>is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have<br>some sort of agreed policies on posting.<br>Back to[[Freegle Start\|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12\|Start Group Report 2009-12]]<br>

			[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]

Dorothyjeanquinn: Created page with 'FREEGLE START GROUP
November 16th 2009
SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277
This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK
Central who …'

2011-02-13T19:38:19Z

Created page with 'FREEGLE START GROUP November 16th 2009 SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277 This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK Central who …'

New page

FREEGLE START GROUP November 16th 2009 SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 123-277 This group currently has 30 members, and is open to any member of Freegle UK Central who would like to be involved: http://uk.groups. yahoo.com/group/freegle- people/ The spokesperson for this group at present is Jean (Trafford) Topics covered during this period have been. • New group applications. Should we expect new groups to commit themselves to any present terms and conditions, and include a clause about accepting any future ones which may be decided upon. • New groups in old places and whether the current team approving new groups now needs an expanded remit. It was decided that it is time to get a mandate on a time limit for accepting other than completely new groups and ex Freecycle groups. Again all the questions on the time frame and whether to give Freecycle Groups preference over other applicants, leading to discussions that we now really needed to get some decisions made by the moderators so we were not leaving applications stuck in limbo. Which questions needed to be answered first was a much more complex issue than at first thought. This led to the first poll questions being formatted as follows (you will find them on the Structure poll currently running with these numbers); and hopefully on the completion of the voting we can go forward. 17) The current procedure assumes that we do not need to consider IMOD run Freecycle groups, either Yahoo or My Freecycle when approving groups. Is this assumption correct? 18) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle Yahoo groups 19) Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle My Freecycle groups 20. Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When should that thinking time be over? The next questions are about how we go about deciding if a group should be considered if either questions 2 or 3 have a yes result. 21. When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be contacted and given one last chance to move? 22) It has been suggested each Freecycle group be decided on its own merits ie not allow groups in areas where the Freecycle group has good relationships with other local groups and/or recognise Freegle groups and treat them as though they were the same thing. Allow applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never planning to move or is unfriendly. 23) Currently, an interim team is approving new groups but only in areas without locally run Freecycle groups. This process will probably change in future as the structure of Freegle is established. Subject to the results of this poll should the interim team be given the mandate to approve groups in areas with locally run Freecycle groups, or should we wait until the final group approval process has been established? (Please note - a yes result for question 7 will force an automatic no result to this question ) • Starting a group What help is available, whether someone should be appointed as joint owner to go in to help out etc? It was decided whoever helped did not need to have ownership as they could do anything required with moderator privileges. That it would be a good idea on a voluntary basis to have a local team available to help out for a month or so for new start ups, but to keep it as local as possible. • Group Settings It was asked if the start up team had standard groups setting that new groups were put on. It was explained that new owners were encouraged to do this themselves and so learn how Yahoo mod tools work but that they were advised to use certain settings. Jean agreed to do a page for the moderator's manual which will cover the recommended settings for starting up a group. She has also agreed to draft some FAQ's and responses and will put them up here for discussion before passing them to the people team. • Group overlap This was covered by the previous poll results, but was made clear that it is only for the boundaries when a new group is set up. It does not prevent a group owner from taking in members proper to other approved groups if they feel they meet their own criteria for membership. The whole question of membership overlap is a major reason why it helps to communicate with other local groups and have some sort of agreed policies on posting. Back to[[Freegle Start|Freegle Start]] or go to next report [[Start Group Report 2009-12|Start Group Report 2009-12]]