Start Group Report 2009-12 - Revision history

Jacky at 10:08, 3 December 2019

2019-12-03T10:08:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 3 December 2019
Line 58:		Line 58:
	<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives' priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>		<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives' priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>

	~~[[Freegle Start\|~~Back to ~~ ~~ Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01]]<br>		Back to Freegle_Start forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01]]<br>

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

Jacky at 20:05, 26 March 2012

2012-03-26T20:05:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:05, 26 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>

	== December 7th 2009 [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/277 277]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/317 317] ==		== December 7th 2009 [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/277 277]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/317 317] ==

	PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL<br>RESULTS?<br>34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle		PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL<br>RESULTS?<br>34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle
Line 31:		Line 31:
	== December 31st 2009 <br> ==		== December 31st 2009 <br> ==

	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 31st 2009<br>35 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/317 317]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-~~Start~~/message/388 388]<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 31st 2009<br>35 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE [http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/317 317]-[http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Freegle-Growth/message/388 388]<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle

	Mostly general discussion while waiting for the Committee results.<br>1. Esther has agreed to liaise with the `people group` regarding the procedure for groups appealing against decisions made by the start team.<br>2. Someone commented on the lack of response from the Group Assessment team. They replied they felt members would rather wait for a full answer than extra time been sent on a quick acknowledgement.<br>3. Discussion into how some people will always interpret facts differently and so there will always be disagreement about how poll results are interpreted.<br>We are pleased to report that no such disagreement was received so the interpretation of the last poll can now be regarded as fact.<br>4. It was requested that records of these summaries were put on Central files. <br>This has and will continue to be done. It was mentioned that they should also be available to the general members, but it was felt at this time it would be hard to decide when it was work in progress and when it was sufficiently redacted for general consumption.		Mostly general discussion while waiting for the Committee results.<br>1. Esther has agreed to liaise with the `people group` regarding the procedure for groups appealing against decisions made by the start team.<br>2. Someone commented on the lack of response from the Group Assessment team. They replied they felt members would rather wait for a full answer than extra time been sent on a quick acknowledgement.<br>3. Discussion into how some people will always interpret facts differently and so there will always be disagreement about how poll results are interpreted.<br>We are pleased to report that no such disagreement was received so the interpretation of the last poll can now be regarded as fact.<br>4. It was requested that records of these summaries were put on Central files. <br>This has and will continue to be done. It was mentioned that they should also be available to the general members, but it was felt at this time it would be hard to decide when it was work in progress and when it was sufficiently redacted for general consumption.

Dorothyjeanquinn: tidy up

2011-02-13T22:28:40Z

tidy up

Show changes

Dorothyjeanquinn at 21:30, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T21:30:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 13 February 2011
Line 41:		Line 41:
	<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>		<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>

	[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[~~Start Group Report 2010-01.\|~~Start Group Report 2010-01]]~~ ~~		[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01]]<br>

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

Dorothyjeanquinn at 21:28, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T21:28:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 13 February 2011
Line 41:		Line 41:
	<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>		<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>

	[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]~~<br>~~		[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.\|Start Group Report 2010-01]]



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

Dorothyjeanquinn at 21:27, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T21:27:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 13 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>

	== December 7th 2009 ==		== December 7th 2009 ==
Line 23:		Line 23:
	The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle<br>moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be<br>learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a<br>test case for new procedures/policy.		The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle<br>moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be<br>learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a<br>test case for new procedures/policy.

	== <br> ==		== <br> ==

	== December 31st 2009 <br> ==		== December 31st 2009 <br> ==

	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 31st 2009<br>35 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 317-388<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 31st 2009<br>35 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 317-388<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle

	Mostly general discussion while waiting for the Committee results.<br>1. Esther has agreed to liaise with the `people group` regarding the procedure<br>for groups appealing against decisions made by the start team.<br>2. Someone commented on the lack of response from the Group Assessment team.<br>They replied they felt members would rather wait for a full answer than extra<br>time been sent on a quick acknowledgement.<br>3. Discussion into how some people will always interpret facts differently and<br>so there will always be disagreement about how poll results are interpreted.<br>We are pleased to report that no such disagreement was received so the<br>interpretation of the last poll can now be regarded as fact.<br>4. It was requested that records of these summaries were put on Central files.<br>This has and will continue to be done. It was mentioned that they should also be<br>available to the general members, but it was felt at this time it would be hard<br>to decide when it was work in progress and when it was sufficiently redacted for<br>general consumption. Also discussed having a moderator only access on the one<br>stop for group summaries etc. Some felt that anyone unwilling to join and read<br>the files on Central would probably not bother to access it, others that it<br>could be less imposing just to have all information available for new moderators<br>to dip in as they wished.<br>It was decided to leave it open for a poll question.<br>6. We discussed members leaving Freegle and the overall process as it is felt<br>that overall responsibility for carrying out the procedure should rest with the<br>start team who will have the structure in place to ensure the correct<br>people/groups are notified and records updated.		Mostly general discussion while waiting for the Committee results.<br>1. Esther has agreed to liaise with the `people group` regarding the procedure<br>for groups appealing against decisions made by the start team.<br>2. Someone commented on the lack of response from the Group Assessment team.<br>They replied they felt members would rather wait for a full answer than extra<br>time been sent on a quick acknowledgement.<br>3. Discussion into how some people will always interpret facts differently and<br>so there will always be disagreement about how poll results are interpreted.<br>We are pleased to report that no such disagreement was received so the<br>interpretation of the last poll can now be regarded as fact.<br>4. It was requested that records of these summaries were put on Central files.<br>This has and will continue to be done. It was mentioned that they should also be<br>available to the general members, but it was felt at this time it would be hard<br>to decide when it was work in progress and when it was sufficiently redacted for<br>general consumption. Also discussed having a moderator only access on the one<br>stop for group summaries etc. Some felt that anyone unwilling to join and read<br>the files on Central would probably not bother to access it, others that it<br>could be less imposing just to have all information available for new moderators<br>to dip in as they wished.<br>It was decided to leave it open for a poll question.<br>6. We discussed members leaving Freegle and the overall process as it is felt<br>that overall responsibility for carrying out the procedure should rest with the<br>start team who will have the structure in place to ensure the correct<br>people/groups are notified and records updated.

	Groups Leaving Freegle.<br>After due consideration , and deciding that if someone required extra time for<br>discussion the IAFC group was there for it to be carried out on; or the reps<br>group could be approached and asked for an extension. The following were agreed<br>on:<br>- Give a week's grace on Central, Cafe and working groups to say goodbye.<br>- Ask them to post on Central about why they're leaving.<br>- Remove from spreadsheet<br>- Remove from web site<br>- Notify the Group Assessment People in case a group leaving enables the<br>acceptance of an application (but not sooner than 4 weeks)<br>- Send them a helpful goodbye mail (e.g. don't forget to get a new Access Key if<br>you rename, please remove the logo from your group) so that they're left with a<br>good taste in their mouth.<br>- Update database with comment and date of leaving<br>- Inform any Freegle regional groups that need to know		Groups Leaving Freegle.<br>After due consideration , and deciding that if someone required extra time for<br>discussion the IAFC group was there for it to be carried out on; or the reps<br>group could be approached and asked for an extension. The following were agreed<br>on:<br>- Give a week's grace on Central, Cafe and working groups to say goodbye.<br>- Ask them to post on Central about why they're leaving.<br>- Remove from spreadsheet<br>- Remove from web site<br>- Notify the Group Assessment People in case a group leaving enables the<br>acceptance of an application (but not sooner than 4 weeks)<br>- Send them a helpful goodbye mail (e.g. don't forget to get a new Access Key if<br>you rename, please remove the logo from your group) so that they're left with a<br>good taste in their mouth.<br>- Update database with comment and date of leaving<br>- Inform any Freegle regional groups that need to know

	This then led to discussion about the data protection licence required. (see<br>below) and the option to allow a group owner who takes the group out a cooling<br>off period of 4 weeks before permitting a new group in the area. We all agreed<br>that this was a reasonable time period.		This then led to discussion about the data protection licence required. (see<br>below) and the option to allow a group owner who takes the group out a cooling<br>off period of 4 weeks before permitting a new group in the area. We all agreed<br>that this was a reasonable time period.

	7. Data Protection.<br>We were advised to be very careful regarding comments on a data base. Unless<br>the comment is factual, we could, in future, have problems under data<br>protection. If anyone has written anything which could be classed as subjective<br>when written in an 'official' record and that person later sends in an SAR<br>(Subject Access Request) then we could have problems. It was suggested that<br>purely the date on leaving would be entered. This would be ok as long as this<br>procedure is published and people know that, when they join Freegle they will be<br>added to a database and that there is this field for when they leave it was<br>suggested.<br>It was then discussed whether we should in any case register with the Data<br>Commissioner this will incur a fee but it was felt it would be necessary anyway<br>at some point and would be a safeguard.		7. Data Protection.<br>We were advised to be very careful regarding comments on a data base. Unless<br>the comment is factual, we could, in future, have problems under data<br>protection. If anyone has written anything which could be classed as subjective<br>when written in an 'official' record and that person later sends in an SAR<br>(Subject Access Request) then we could have problems. It was suggested that<br>purely the date on leaving would be entered. This would be ok as long as this<br>procedure is published and people know that, when they join Freegle they will be<br>added to a database and that there is this field for when they leave it was<br>suggested.<br>It was then discussed whether we should in any case register with the Data<br>Commissioner this will incur a fee but it was felt it would be necessary anyway<br>at some point and would be a safeguard.

	8. Legal working group.<br>When we are in discussion of many things we come up against legalities. It was<br>felt that there would be no harm in asking for volunteers who are qualified in<br>some way legally or through experience and see if there are sufficient to form a<br>working group that the other groups can go to for advice.		8. Legal working group.<br>When we are in discussion of many things we come up against legalities. It was<br>felt that there would be no harm in asking for volunteers who are qualified in<br>some way legally or through experience and see if there are sufficient to form a<br>working group that the other groups can go to for advice.

	<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>		<br>We now need to decide which if any of these items can go to the committee and<br>which may need a poll on Central. We also intend to see if there are any other<br>questions which are ready to be polled on, depending on the Representatives'<br>priorities.<br>Jean<br><br>

	[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>		[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>

Dorothyjeanquinn: Added summary 2

2011-02-13T21:15:20Z

Added summary 2

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 7th 2009
+FREEGLE START GROUP<br>
 PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL<br>RESULTS?<br>34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle<br>moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be<br>learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a<br>test case for new procedures/policy.
 [[Freegle Start|Back to &nbsp; Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>

Dorothyjeanquinn at 19:49, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T19:49:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 13 February 2011
Line 23:		Line 23:
	[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>		[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>

	~~[[Category:Start_Reports\|Start_Reports]]~~

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

Dorothyjeanquinn at 19:48, 13 February 2011

2011-02-13T19:48:37Z

Dorothyjeanquinn: New page

2011-02-13T19:46:28Z

New page

New page

FREEGLE START GROUP December 7th 2009

PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL RESULTS? 34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members. SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317 Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle

It was suggested that the start working group needed to decide formally to accept the results of the poll and inform the new groups team what to do; ie how the decisions from the poll will be implemented. The new group team say they are still working under a very limited remit. Non- controversial ones are being admitted and what is needed is to nail down what has been voted in and where there are still issues so we can create a system that can be used to make a final decision on all the rest. This includes the type of team, what we do about whole networks wanting to join as opposed to individuals, what to do about consulting about none moving Freecycle groups etc. The new group wants a firm remit agreed from the poll replies so that when they get an application from an area where there is a FC group in place and thriving we can ask the FC what their intentions are, by way of informing them of the position, asking if they are going to move by X date, and then giving a firm answer one way or the other to the applicant.

The poll results. These were given at length and it was agreed by the start team that over 70% could be taken as final whereas anything less needed further discussion. It was agreed that some of the poll questions could have been better phrased and lessons would be learned. Much discussion ensued, everyone aware of the sensitivities involved, resulting in agreement as follows. Agreed . 1. The team do not have to consider any groups run by IMOD. 2. The team can now consider groups covered by Freecycle/My Freecycle groups. groups on a case by case basis. 3. Locally run Freecycle groups will be still given priority until 3 months from the date of the poll closure to move over. (End of February. ) 4. After this time they can allow and give priority to new Freegle groups regardless of the local Freecycle group in the area, but will still take into account local feeling and issues. 5. Freecycle groups where an application has already been received to start a Freegle group in their area, will be notified from March 1st and will be given 4 weeks from that date to choose whether to move across: After this date we will continue to give the 4 week grace period to Freecycle groups on receipt of a viable application.

What we need to do next is. 1) Clarify and confirm what can be done now and what should wait. 2) Discuss and present options for a longer term checking and approvals system 3) Get a mandate for a permanent team or other method of approving new groups.

One member felt she should not participate further in this discussion as she had a vested interest. It was agreed that it was not a barrier and that it could be useful to have opinions from all sides. It was suggested that more effort should be made to keep those waiting updated, or at least informed that they were still under consideration. It was generally felt that more should be done to communicate with those waiting even if it was a general statement just to let people know that they aren't forgotten or being over looked.

It was put forward that we need to have questions ready for the next poll in order to get the assessment team fully legitimate.

Some thought that once the representative group is elected, they would have a mandate to delegate their responsibility to a start group. So are unsure whether we need a separate poll for it. That their mandate would not have been increased it the majority did not want it. Others feel that there is no such mandate in their remit. Perhaps we need to discuss it with Structure? It was agreed that there is definitely a mandate to continue under the current criteria and possibly even a slightly expanded one but it is an interim team and while one option would be to keep it there are plenty of others and they need considering, so do we work on increasing what the present team can achieve for now, or concentrate our efforts on making sure a team like the one we have will be required long term?

Appeals Procedure We need to discuss with the people group if it is viable to include it in with their draft proposals.

New Team/Expansion? It was suggested that maybe we have a separate team to deal with any moves that just need rubber stamping while Freecycle still have priority, to prevent holding up other applications. The new group team feel it is impracticable as they would still have to be in any negotiations as they may be working on conflicting issues. They do fast track them and give them priority. It was suggested that where further clarification may be needed they could when necessary, on a case by case basis, ask for views on Central, and so build up a set of guidelines to use going forwards - sort of like case law or precedents.

The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a test case for new procedures/policy.

[[Freegle_Start|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]] 

[[Category:Start Reports]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 13 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 7th 2009		FREEGLE START GROUP<br>December 7th 2009

	PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL<br>RESULTS?<br>34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle		PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU FEEL WE HAVE DRAWN ANY INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE POLL<br>RESULTS?<br>34 Members. This Group is open to all Central Members.<br>SUMMARY OF POSTS FROM MESSAGE 277-317<br>Spokesperson: Jean, Trafford Freegle

	It was suggested that the start working group needed to decide formally to<br>accept the results of the poll and inform the new groups team what to do; ie how<br>the decisions from the poll will be implemented.<br>The new group team say they are still working under a very limited remit. Non-<br>controversial ones are being admitted and what is needed is to nail down what<br>has been voted in and where there are still issues so we can create a system<br>that can be used to make a final decision on all the rest. This includes the<br>type of team, what we do about whole networks wanting to join as opposed to<br>individuals, what to do about consulting about none moving Freecycle groups etc.<br>The new group wants a firm remit agreed from the poll replies so that when they<br>get an application from an area where there is a FC group in place and thriving<br>we can ask the FC what their intentions are, by way of informing them of the<br>position, asking if they are going to move by X date, and then giving a firm<br>answer one way or the other to the applicant.		It was suggested that the start working group needed to decide formally to<br>accept the results of the poll and inform the new groups team what to do; ie how<br>the decisions from the poll will be implemented.<br>The new group team say they are still working under a very limited remit. Non-<br>controversial ones are being admitted and what is needed is to nail down what<br>has been voted in and where there are still issues so we can create a system<br>that can be used to make a final decision on all the rest. This includes the<br>type of team, what we do about whole networks wanting to join as opposed to<br>individuals, what to do about consulting about none moving Freecycle groups etc.<br>The new group wants a firm remit agreed from the poll replies so that when they<br>get an application from an area where there is a FC group in place and thriving<br>we can ask the FC what their intentions are, by way of informing them of the<br>position, asking if they are going to move by X date, and then giving a firm<br>answer one way or the other to the applicant.

	The poll results.<br>These were given at length and it was agreed by the start team that over 70%<br>could be taken as final whereas anything less needed further discussion. It was<br>agreed that some of the poll questions could have been better phrased and<br>lessons would be learned.<br>Much discussion ensued, everyone aware of the sensitivities involved, resulting<br>in agreement as follows.<br>Agreed .<br>1. The team do not have to consider any groups run by IMOD.<br>2. The team can now consider groups covered by Freecycle/My Freecycle groups.<br>groups on a case by case basis.<br>3. Locally run Freecycle groups will be still given priority until 3 months from<br>the date of the poll closure to move over. (End of February. )<br>4. After this time they can allow and give priority to new Freegle groups<br>regardless of the local Freecycle group in the area, but will still take into<br>account local feeling and issues.<br>5. Freecycle groups where an application has already been received to start a<br>Freegle group in their area, will be notified from March 1st and will be given 4<br>weeks from that date to choose whether to move across: After this date we will<br>continue to give the 4 week grace period to Freecycle groups on receipt of a<br>viable application.		The poll results.<br>These were given at length and it was agreed by the start team that over 70%<br>could be taken as final whereas anything less needed further discussion. It was<br>agreed that some of the poll questions could have been better phrased and<br>lessons would be learned.<br>Much discussion ensued, everyone aware of the sensitivities involved, resulting<br>in agreement as follows.<br>Agreed .<br>1. The team do not have to consider any groups run by IMOD.<br>2. The team can now consider groups covered by Freecycle/My Freecycle groups.<br>groups on a case by case basis.<br>3. Locally run Freecycle groups will be still given priority until 3 months from<br>the date of the poll closure to move over. (End of February. )<br>4. After this time they can allow and give priority to new Freegle groups<br>regardless of the local Freecycle group in the area, but will still take into<br>account local feeling and issues.<br>5. Freecycle groups where an application has already been received to start a<br>Freegle group in their area, will be notified from March 1st and will be given 4<br>weeks from that date to choose whether to move across: After this date we will<br>continue to give the 4 week grace period to Freecycle groups on receipt of a<br>viable application.

	What we need to do next is.<br>1) Clarify and confirm what can be done now and what should wait.<br>2) Discuss and present options for a longer term checking and approvals system<br>3) Get a mandate for a permanent team or other method of approving new groups.		What we need to do next is.<br>1) Clarify and confirm what can be done now and what should wait.<br>2) Discuss and present options for a longer term checking and approvals system<br>3) Get a mandate for a permanent team or other method of approving new groups.

	One member felt she should not participate further in this discussion as she had<br>a vested interest. It was agreed that it was not a barrier and that it could be<br>useful to have opinions from all sides.<br>It was suggested that more effort should be made to keep those waiting updated,<br>or at least informed that they were still under consideration. It was generally<br>felt that more should be done to communicate with those waiting even if it was a<br>general statement just to let people know that they aren't forgotten or being<br>over looked.		One member felt she should not participate further in this discussion as she had<br>a vested interest. It was agreed that it was not a barrier and that it could be<br>useful to have opinions from all sides.<br>It was suggested that more effort should be made to keep those waiting updated,<br>or at least informed that they were still under consideration. It was generally<br>felt that more should be done to communicate with those waiting even if it was a<br>general statement just to let people know that they aren't forgotten or being<br>over looked.

	It was put forward that we need to have questions ready for the next poll in<br>order to get the assessment team fully legitimate.		It was put forward that we need to have questions ready for the next poll in<br>order to get the assessment team fully legitimate.

	Some thought that once the representative group is elected, they would have a<br>mandate to delegate their responsibility to a start group. So are unsure whether<br>we need a separate poll for it. That their mandate would not have been increased<br>it the majority did not want it. Others feel that there is no such mandate in<br>their remit. Perhaps we need to discuss it with Structure?<br>It was agreed that there is definitely a mandate to continue under the current<br>criteria and possibly even a slightly expanded one but it is an interim team and<br>while one option would be to keep it there are plenty of others and they need<br>considering, so do we work on increasing what the present team can achieve for<br>now, or concentrate our efforts on making sure a team like the one we have will<br>be required long term?		Some thought that once the representative group is elected, they would have a<br>mandate to delegate their responsibility to a start group. So are unsure whether<br>we need a separate poll for it. That their mandate would not have been increased<br>it the majority did not want it. Others feel that there is no such mandate in<br>their remit. Perhaps we need to discuss it with Structure?<br>It was agreed that there is definitely a mandate to continue under the current<br>criteria and possibly even a slightly expanded one but it is an interim team and<br>while one option would be to keep it there are plenty of others and they need<br>considering, so do we work on increasing what the present team can achieve for<br>now, or concentrate our efforts on making sure a team like the one we have will<br>be required long term?

	Appeals Procedure<br>We need to discuss with the people group if it is viable to include it in with<br>their draft proposals.		Appeals Procedure<br>We need to discuss with the people group if it is viable to include it in with<br>their draft proposals.

	New Team/Expansion?<br>It was suggested that maybe we have a separate team to deal with any moves that<br>just need rubber stamping while Freecycle still have priority, to prevent<br>holding up other applications. The new group team feel it is impracticable as<br>they would still have to be in any negotiations as they may be working on<br>conflicting issues. They do fast track them and give them priority.<br>It was suggested that where further clarification may be needed they could when<br>necessary, on a case by case basis, ask for views on Central, and so build up a<br>set of guidelines to use going forwards - sort of like case law or precedents.		New Team/Expansion?<br>It was suggested that maybe we have a separate team to deal with any moves that<br>just need rubber stamping while Freecycle still have priority, to prevent<br>holding up other applications. The new group team feel it is impracticable as<br>they would still have to be in any negotiations as they may be working on<br>conflicting issues. They do fast track them and give them priority.<br>It was suggested that where further clarification may be needed they could when<br>necessary, on a case by case basis, ask for views on Central, and so build up a<br>set of guidelines to use going forwards - sort of like case law or precedents.

	The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle<br>moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be<br>learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a<br>test case for new procedures/policy.		The new group team reported their first threat of legal action by a freecycle<br>moderator? Totally without substance so not overly worried but lessons to be<br>learned as the case has so many aspects of difficulty that it could be used as a<br>test case for new procedures/policy.

	[[~~Freegle_Start~~\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>		[[Freegle Start\|Back to   Freegle_Start]] forward to [[Start Group Report 2010-01.]]<br>

	[[Category:~~Start Reports~~]]		[[Category:Start_Reports\|Start_Reports]]

			[[Category:Start_Group_Reports]]