Start Group Report 2010-04

The Freegle Start Working Group can be found at http://freegle.it/Start

Summary for April 2010

Posts 790 to 1024

No of Members : 52

Spokesperson : Sue (Walsall)

The points in the last summary were sent to the Reps who approved all our recommendations except point (c)

(a) Is it OK for existing group owners to set up new groups outside their own area but not just for helping out? Yes, in principle, but we don't want empire building so ideally they should be short term and looking for more local help as soon as possible. Groups should come from a local requirement for them and Freegle as an organisation never sets up groups even to fill gaps.

(b) What about groups who expanded their boundaries when they left Freecycle? GAT will look at these individually and discuss with the group owner/team if it seems to be a problem when they get new applications for groups in the expanded area.

(c) Should we take into account the person applying for a listing, as well as the area they want to cover? The Team can send cases to the Reps at their discretion, but must have a quorum to do so".

If the GAT have solid evidence (which is the only type we will take into account, hearsay evidence should be ignored because it is just that, hearsay) that an applicant is unsuitable, it won't be necessary to involve the Reps.

The following link is the current draft proposal being discussed on this group so people please take the time to read through it and let us have your comments on it. https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AfsQoQeOQu93ZGZudnZjNm5fNjFoajJ2cnJmNw&hl=en

(d) What if there is more than one application for a new group in an area? Deal with in strict date order. There were several views on this but this is the simplest option so the one we have gone for as all the others were quite subjective.

(e) Should we accept a group opened by someone who also plans to keep their Freecycle group open in the same area? Yes, because if we don't allow it they may just lie to us - but we should point out to them that TFN are likely to take a dim view of it. Of course, we would prefer them to move their FC group to Freegle.

(f) What is the definition of an inactive group? Lack of response from owner address, same number of messages a month (i.e. auto messages), less than 10 messages a month.

The Buddy proposal was recently completed by the WG and ratified by the Reps. The scheme should be up and running in the next few days. Many thanks to Tricia for setting this up.

The GAT team will now follow these guidelines. On (C) The group have been asked to elaborate not only on what types of information should be made available and to whom, but also what should be considered relevant.

After much discussion the consensus seems to be that the applicants name and email address should not be supplied to all groups who have an interest. That all initial groups which the GAT team feel are relevant should be asked it they feel any others should be consulted.

Any objections to the proposed new group should be listened to, but they need to be backed up by facts and evidence for the GAT team to be able to act on them. Territorial objections alone will be insufficient. No one should go looking for information to discredit a new applicant, and only facts which would be relevant to owning a Freegle should be considered.

We went on to discuss the possibility of a new dummy group being set up for new group applicants, so they can practice and see what is involved, and hopefully weed out earlier, the ones without the commitment necessary to get a group up and running successfully. It is felt that it may also prevent those that drop out because they feel they are being ignored, because of the sometimes considerable time lapse from applying for a group, to GAT being able to consult everyone necessary.

David (Reading) has offered to get a proposal to the Reps and set up the dummy group. It is seen as something to run alongside the Buddy scheme and will help feed them through when and if their group is approved. Or maybe offer them something else they can help with if it isn't.

We have now agreed that the procedure for getting approval for decisions is:

1. Discuss and reach a majority conclusion on group.
2. Include it in our summary to Central.
3. Give time for any discussion or objections we receive.
4. Submit to Reps to either accept, reject, ask for more information or decide it is outside of their remit and we should have a poll.

The Reps have agreed a specialist group for large events such as Glastonbury can go ahead and supply us with feedback and a possible working model for other specialist groups. Also we should note that the approval of the Glastonbury Festival group will not set a precedent for other specialist groups to be set up.

Paul and Kath are working on the proposed checklist for new groups and the final proposal will be sent to Start/Reps for ratification.

GAT team guidelines have been updated and will be put on the wiki once proof read.

We were asked if we had got a list of skills or talents we believe would be useful specifically for this group. Although this subject has been running on the Group for a few days, if people have any comments to make or skills to add, they need to join the Start Working Group. We also have the following outstanding tasks:

1. Define procedures for groups leaving or changing ownership
2. Consider whether to establish a database of mods, including who would have access to such information.
3. Work out what to do about Specialist Freegle groups. The main example is about a possible Scouts group. We need people to join in this discussion so that we can thrash out a proposal.