November 2009 Poll
RESULTS TO STRUCTURE & START GROUP POLL WHICH CLOSED ON 20 NOVEMBER 2009
Please find here the results to the Poll run on behalf of the Structure and Start Working Groups which closed at 11 pm on 20 November 2009.
168 people cast votes. (Please note there was a typo in my first email where I said that 166 people had cast votes.) Two of those votes were discarded; one was from someone who was not an owner
or moderator on a Freegle group and the other I was unable to verify due to no response from the group owner.
Of the 166 people casting votes, not all answered every question. Therefore, the percentage figure relates to the percentage of people casting a vote on that particular question, not the total number
of voters. You’ll also note that the percentage figures sometimes do not hit 100%. This is what comes of rounding!
Structure Group Questions
1. Should Freegle elect a representative body and delegate to it some decision making powers?
No - All decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following discussion on Central 22 13%
Yes - We should have a fully empowered elected body which can take any decisions on our behalf and are empowered to consult with Central as appropriate 16 10%
Yes – An elected body should be empowered to take some decisions - but with some decisions reserved for "general member" vote 126 76%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 1 1%
2. Should the vote in Question 3 be 'No - all decisions should be made by a vote' - do you want:
The present system of working groups with open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and polling 97 85%
None 8 7%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 9 8%
3. Should the vote in Question 3 be to elect an elected body with limited decision making powers, which of the following would you like to see as a model for how those decisions are shared?
All such decision making powers should rest with Central (ie.all moderators) until they are explicitly devolved to the elected body by general member vote 12 8%
The elected body should be empowered to make decisions necessary to run the organisation but these decisions may be overturned by a poll or vote on Central. 31 20%
Day to day decisions will be made by the elected body but major matters (eg membership conditions, constitution, major policy changes and similar) should always be referred to general member vote 107 67%
None of the above 4 3%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 5 3%
'4. 'An elected body may wish to delegate what authority it is given in particular matters to individuals or groups. (eg devolving the screening of new groups
'to a separate group, or empowering a media group to make press releases without reference back, or appointing a p'articular person to oversee the website etc) Do you feel:
Yes, the elected body may devolve its responsibility and authority to other groups as it sees appropriate – while reporting any such devolution to Central and remaining subject to later revision by whatever polls may take place on Central 103 63%
All such devolutions and appointments should be referred to Central. 34 21%
No all authority to act on our behalf should be kept with the elected body or Central 18 11%
None of the above 4 3%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 4 3%
5. In some of the options offered in Question 6, it is envisaged that a poll or vote published on Central (open to all Freegle members to vote) should be the final
'authority and over-ride 'any other authority granted to an elected body, working groups or other option. Who can call for such a poll on the Central group? (NB this would also be the precondition for a vote of no confidence in the elected body or any other office)
Any single member can request a poll/vote on Central 25 15%
Any group comprising 2% of Central membership at the time of first stated formal objection can request a poll/vote on Central 14 8%
Any group comprising 5% of Central members at the time of first stated formal objection can request a poll/vote on Central 36 22%
Any group comprising 10% of Central member at the time of first stated formal objection can request a poll/vote on Central 56 35%
Only working groups or the elected committee can request a poll on central 19 12%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 11 7%
6. How many members of an elected body should there be (the agreed number would be calculated as the average of answers received, rounded up to the next
odd number)
3 1 1%
5 13 8%
6 6 4%
7 37 24%
8 14 9%
9 19 12%
10 19 12%
11 11 7%
12 12 8%
13 7 5%
15 8 5%
18 1 1%
20 7 5%
7. How often do you think elections for members of an elected body should take place?
Once a year 87 54%
Once every 2 years 48 30%
Once every 3 years 18 11%
None of the above 2 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 7 4%
8. How many terms of membership of an elected group (1-3 years depending on response to Question 9) should a member be allowed to serve before they are re-elected? NB IF you vote for officers retaining their post for three years BUT ask that elections take place every year, this would be implemented as 1/3rd of the members standing down and being re-elected each year. In this scenario the first year 1/3 would be elected for 3 years. another third for 2 years and the final third for 3 years to ensure continuity.
1 term 36 22%
2 terms 40 25%
3 terms 40 25%
Unlimited 35 22%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 9 6%
9. At the end of their term of membership of an elected body should existing members:
Be eligible to stand for re-election immediately 104 64%
Be forced to "take a break" for one electoral period 13 8%
Be allowed to serve 2 consecutive periods before being required to take a break 23 14%
Be allowed to serve 3 consecutive periods before being required to take a break 16 10%
None of the above 3 2%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 4 3%
'10. Depending on the working practices of an elected body, there will be a need for specific 'roles/officers within the Committee (Chairman or Facilitator, Secretary, Treasurer etc). Do you think we should:
Run separate elections for specific roles/officers 46 29%
Allow the elected body to choose their own role holders/officers from their number 107 67%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 6 4%
11. If a vacancy arises due to a member resigning from the elected body should we:
Allow the elected body to co-opt a replacement member to serve until the next scheduled elections 63 39%
Ask the elected body to ask for a "by-election" for a replacement 83 51%
Leave the vacancy open until the next scheduled elections 6 4%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 9 6%
12. quorum is the minimum number of voters an elected body would need for a decision. What should be the quorum of elected members (in post) that are required for a decision
(larger percentages guarantee democracy - but smaller percentages mean work continues when people are on holiday/sick/offline etc)
NB depending on results of the 'question on how many members an elected body should have (Question 6), 'this result would be adjusted in order to
have whole numbers
25% 11 7%
33.3% 20 12%
50% 46 29%
66.6% 41 26%
75% 18 11%
Allow the elected body to decide 19 12%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 5 3%
13. At the end of this poll are you happy for the Structure Working Group and the Returning Officer to set up elections based on its results and run elections?
Yes 123 76%
Not yet - I would like the a proposed, detailed electoral plan resulting from this poll to be brought back to Central for further discussion before proceeding with
any elections. 33 20%
None of the above 1 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 1) 5 3%
14. In the previous poll a formal document which defines how the Freegle organisation operates was voted by 88% (190 votes) as being required. Are you happy for
the Structure Working Group to retain the mandate, whatever the results of this poll, to prepare this written document for Freegle nationally to be proposed in
draft to Central?
Yes 136 84%
No - an elected body should prepare the written Document 5 3%
No - it should be openly discussed on Central 17 11%
None of the above 1 1%
Oher (Comments at Appendix 1) 3 2%
Start Group Questions
15. 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?
No - we should be considering them when approving groups 20 13%
Yes - We should not consider them when approving groups 123 77%
None of the above 5 3%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 11 7%
16. Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle Yahoo groups?
No - we should never allow groups in areas with a locally run Freecycle Yahoo group 13 8%
Yes - we should consider groups in areas with a locally run Freecycle Yahoo group 125 78%
None of the above 3 2%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 20 12%
17. Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle MyFreecycle groups?
No - we should never allow groups in areas with a locally run My Freecycle group 8 5%
Yes - we should consider groups in areas with a locally run My Freecycle group 136 85%
None of the above 2 1%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 15 9%
18. Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When should
that thinking time be over?
Now 32 20%
1 month 30 18%
3 months 39 24%
6 months 22 14%
1 year 8 5%
None of the above 8 5%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 24 15%
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 7 of 24
Page 8-----------------------
19. When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be contacted and
given one last chance to move?
a) Should the Freecycle group/s in question be
contacted and given one last chance to move?
Yes 124 79%
No 28 18%
None of the above 6 4%
b) If we give a notice period, how long should it be?
2 weeks 49 35%
4 weeks 73 53%
None of the above 17 12%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 21
20. It has been suggested that where there is an overlap in area between an existing Freecycle
group and a proposed Freegle group, we should not approve a new Freegle group if the
existing Freecycle group has good relationships with nearby Freegle groups, but we should
approve applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never planning to move or is
unfriendly. NB (please note - If this option gets a ‘yes’ result it would have to be considered
further to decide exactly how this would be done and would need to wait for things like an
appeals procedure to be in place before it was implemented.)
No - We should allow new Freegle groups regardless
of the local Freecycle group 98 61%
Yes - We should have some way of deciding if they
are friendly and not allow new groups in their
area if they are. 51 32%
None of the above 4 3%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 9 6%
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 8 of 24
Page 9-----------------------
21. 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 22 will
force an automatic ‘no’ result to this question)
Yes - The Interim group should have the mandate
to approve groups in areas with locally run
Freecycle groups 101 63%
No - The interim group should not have the mandate
to approve groups in areas with locally run
Freecycle groups 41 26%
None of the above 3 2%
Other (Comments at Appendix 2) 15 9%
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 9 of 24
Page 10-----------------------
APPENDIX 1
‘OTHER’ COMMENTS RELATING TO QUESTIONS IN STRUCTURE & START GROUP POLL
WHICH CLOSED ON 20 NOVEMBER 2009
Question 1: Should Freegle elect a representative body and delegate to it some decision making
powers?
My sentiments are with the third option but there would have to have been some
clarification of 'some' for me to have voted for it. As it is written 'some' could be
anything. This needs to be clarified.
Question 2: Should the vote in Question 1 be 'No - all decisions should be made by a vote' - do you
want:
I like the 1st ans to the Question but if we do go down this route we need to have a
time / number of posts limit to it . Other wise it will just go on and around for ever
Present system good for the moment whilst Freegle is being set up. Would like a
reconsideration of structure when Freegle has been running for a year.
n/a
This question is irrelevant to me as I didn't vote for the relevant option in Q3.
N/A
Sorry i think there are too many 'working' groups as it is. i'm on SN for all of them but
clueless as to what's really going on atm or which to post to for what exactly :-(
With working groups, but limit working groups in size and to include professionals
(where appropriate) and lay.
A discussion on Central to come up with options for working without a central body
I like the first option but not sure about "open membership" for the working groups. At
some point they could get overrun with people who have an agenda or even if not they
could get too big to be workable
Question 3: Should the vote in Question 1 be to elect an elected body with limited decision making
powers, which of the following would you like to see as a model for how those decisions
are shared?
I think decision making should be made by Central for the first year, then
reconsideration when Freegle is better established.
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 10 of 24
Page 11-----------------------
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
In essence I agree with the third option but I feel there should be more clarification of
what are day to day decisoins and what are major. Without this a priori clarity, the
elected body itself could decide what was major - not a good idea. What I am saying I
suppose is that there should be a list of things which are delegated and a list which have
to be voted on (but not the Lisbon treaty - that is signed and sealed already).
I think ALL of the first three options are applicable and not mutually exclusive, and I
vote for all three.
Question 4: An elected body may wish to delegate what authority it is given in particular matters to
individuals or groups. (eg devolving the screening of new groups to a separate group, or
empowering a media group to make press releases without reference back, or
appointing a particular person to oversee the website etc) Do you feel:
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
Elected body may devolve but must be a built in appeals procedure to include elected
body members not on the devolved group.
Devolved by committee, but reported to Central, where a pre-agreed level of objection
would trigger an immediate poll, not later.
Question 5: In some of the options offered in Question 4, it is envisaged that a poll or vote
published on Central (open to all Freegle members to vote) should be the final authority
and over-ride any other authority granted to an elected body, working groups or other
option. Who can call for such a poll on the Central group? (NB this would also be the
precondition for a vote of no confidence in the elected body or any other office)
As above but 20% of Central members etc
Any member can request a poll, but must have the support of a specific
number/percentage of members for the poll to actually take place
Although in one way I think it might be democratic to say any member can request a
poll/vote on central, I think there needs to be some restrictions. For example if a poll is
very similar to one that had already been carried out fairly recently. Also how would
such a system cope with a member being a bit of a troublemaker? I no moderators of
Freegle groups should be well-behaved, but we are all only human, and sometimes
even moderators need to be reminded of the need to be polite to other mods, etc etc.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 11 of 24
Page 12-----------------------
Only working groups or the elected committee can request a poll on central unless a
minimum of 50% of groups disagree with a proposal,vote or poll
10 members
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
any single member who is seconded by at least 3 other members can request a
vote/poll
10% of central members...., or working groups or the elected committee
If there is a set number of Freegle members (not part of a group, formal or otherwise)
who felt strongly enough that a matter needed a poll or vote then I would prefer this
option. Perhaps the set number could be 10 or more individual members.
Any single member can request a vote / poll through Central but that only when mass
of opinion reaches 5% on Central (total of both for and against) a formal vote should
then be held.
the wording is weird here, if someone "requests" a vote on central does it mean that it
will happen or the elected body then has to consdier the request?
Question 6: No ‘other’ option for this question.
Question 7: How often do you think elections for members of an elected body should take place?
Only if a vote of no confidence by the majority of UK groups
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
every 6 months
At the moment with Freegle, every 6 months.
Once every two years but with the special ability to vote new members into the elected
body in the case of resignation or other reason for leaving.
Rolling basis, with a percentage standing each year, to ensure continuity
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 12 of 24
Page 13-----------------------
Question 8: How many terms of membership of an elected group (1-3 years depending on response
to Question 7) should a member be allowed to serve before they are re-elected? NB IF
you vote for officers retaining their post for three years BUT ask that elections take
place every year, this would be implemented as 1/3rd of the members standing down
and being re-elected each year. In this scenario the first year 1/3 would be elected for 3
years. another third for 2 years and the final third for 3 years to ensure continuity.
Everyone up for election every year. If people vote them back in, they stay on.
I can't figure this question out! It's late, I'm tired...
Unlimited so long as the majority of groups agree or a member of the group wishes to
resign their post
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
six months
Freegle is still young and fluid and to be talking about 3 years and 3 terms at this stage
seems both grandiose and fanciful. At the moment in principle my preference would be
for unlimited terms, but I think it is early days to be talking about this.
finding it really hard to make sense of this question - I understand what you're aiming
for but can't make sense of what I need to vote for sorry!
as a minimum - any less gives too great a turnover
Question 9: At the end of their term of membership of an elected body should existing members:
They should be allowed to be elligible to stand for re-election immediately unless when
polled the majority of group mods and Go's decide that the member of the elected
body should stand down such as with a vote of no confidence in them.
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
Be eligble to stand for re-election but not be automatically on the candidate list. They
should be placed together on equal footing with any other newcoming prospective
members
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 13 of 24
Page 14-----------------------
Question 10: Depending on the working practices of an elected body, there will be a need for
specific roles/officers within the Committee (Chairman or Facilitator, Secretary,
Treasurer etc). Do you think we should:
2nd option as long as there are appropriate people in the elected body to carry out
those roles. If there are not, they should have the power to co-opt another person who
has the required skills, knowledge or expertise.
I think generally we should allow the elected body to choose their own role holders, at
least in the first instance. But perhaps reconsider this in the fullness of time.
a combination so that say 3 main office bearers are elected individually, with remaining
members elected to no aprticular position
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
Allow the commitee to choose, or if no suitable skills exist within the committee, co-opt
non-voting appointees to the post. Appointees to be reviewed after each term.
Question 11: If a vacancy arises due to a member resigning from the elected body should we:
As 2nd choice, but with the option in the poll to ask the elected body to co-opt.
Leave the vacancy open until the next scheduled election, unless or until more than a
third of seats become vacant.
Any of these options as the committee should deem appropriate depending on the
circumstances.
Aloow elected body to co-opt if the wish or leave until next scheduled election
Ask, in order, the runners up from the previous election to take the spot. This might
need to be governed by a runner up having at least a certain percentage or number of
votes.
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 14 of 24
Page 15-----------------------
Combination of 2 and 3, by-election or leave vacant, depending on how close to formal
election period.
Combination of both 11.1 and 11.3, ie, co-opt OR leave vacant.
Question 12: A quorum is the minimum number of voters an elected body would need for a
decision. What should be the quorum of elected members (in post) that are required for
a decision (larger percentages guarantee democracy - but smaller percentages mean
work continues when people are on holiday/sick/offline etc) NB depending on results of
the question on how many members an elected body should have (Question 6), this
result would be adjusted in order to have whole numbers
50% rounded up not down, ie 4/7
Disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
It depends on the decision. The more important ones, however defined, should
probably have two thirds, e.g. 5 out of 7.
53% (just over 50%) 53 based on 7/13
Question 13: At the end of this poll are you happy for the Structure Working Group and the
Returning Officer to set up elections based on its results and run elections?
Basically I'm happy with it. I think perhaps after a year or two the structure should
perhaps be reviewed. Or maybe see how things work, but let members know they can
raise matter with central if they think something is not working properly.
Yes - on condition that 66.6% of membership has returned a vote.
No, I disagree with an elected body of any kind
See answer to 1 & 2 (Returning Officer cross referenced and responses were [for
question 1] No – all decisions should be made by a vote open to all members following
discussion on Central and [for question 2] The present system of working groups with
open membership to be continued with options brought to Central for discussion and
polling.)
As I have said in various answers, I think more clarification is required on the sorts of
decisions which would be considered major and which day-to-day. I am less concerned
about the mechanics of voting etc.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 15 of 24
Page 16-----------------------
Question 14: In the previous poll a formal document which defines how the Freegle organisation
operates was voted by 88% (190 votes) as being required. Are you happy for the
Structure Working Group to retain the mandate, whatever the results of this poll, to
prepare this written document for Freegle nationally to be proposed in draft to Central?
I would like the "structure working group" to work with the "elected body" to finish the
work started on a "formal document", and then present it to Central as a proposal.
this varies with the authority granted the elected body ..in the main question above.
Should comittee be granted full powers this question is invalid... however i would like to
see structure working group doing the leg work ..
Yes - but at least one draft should be forwarded from Structure to Central for
discussion. It should not be presented as a fait accompli.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 16 of 24
Page 17-----------------------
APPENDIX 2
‘OTHER’ COMMENTS RELATING TO QUESTIONS IN STRUCTURE & START GROUP POLL
WHICH CLOSED ON 20 NOVEMBER 2009
Question 15: 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?
This should be decided on a case by case basis
don't understand the question
We should not consider MF or imod run but may be ask the yahoo groups if they have
any intention of moving
im not sure on this one so i think it will be better of if i dont answer it to be honest
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
Yes - but why not have over lapping groups?
bot sure
consideration for a set time period if they havent moved in that time then newgroups
should not be left hanging in def, consideration should also be given to any work in local
area new go may haveone to publicise group
The local group should decide if any group should be approved which may operate in
their area
we should not consider ANY Freecycle Groups - Freegle is fully independent of
Freecycle.
I think each case should be looked at seperately. Saying that I think it is time that we
moved ahead with Freegle, it is obvious that Freecycle will never work with us. There
are many groups that are stuck either because the owner has gone awol or they are still
"on the fence" I feel now is the time to move onwards.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 17 of 24
Page 18-----------------------
Question 16: Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle
Yahoo groups?
Yes - but the new group created for that area should be willing to have the FC group
merge with it at some point in the future if they decide they want to leave.
I think we should consider groups, but if possible consult with Freegle moderators
operating in or close to that area. I'm assuming that there are still some contacts at
local levels between moderators of different groups.
yes we should consider groups but with a set limit
We should only allow groups in areas with a locally run Freecycle Yahoo group if we
have a sizeable group of people asking for a Freegle group.
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
We should consider groups in areas where an existing Freecycle Yahoo group is
operating in a way that is clearly not compatible with the objectives of Freegle.
not sure
see above but only in considering all other reuse organisations (Returning Officer cross
referencing: ‘Above’ is - Other (please specify) - consideration for a set time period if
they havent moved in that time then newgroups should not be left hanging in def,
consideration should also be given to any work in local area new go may haveone to
publicise group)
The local group should decide if any group should be approved which may operate in
their area
Yes but only after making an announcement that we're going to start doing this on
IAFCMods and only after giving the local group a chance to move to Freegle.
Fully covered - no
Partly coverd – yes
Local Freegle group owners should be consulted as if there is no co-operation from the
Freecycle group in question then a Freegle group should be allowed.
Yes consider them, but take into consideration feelings of local Freegle group mods. As
has been stated on Central or Structure it's possible that local Freegle groups may have
a good working relationship with existing Freecycle group mods and any new groups
being approved may result in breakdown of this.
Unsure about this
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 18 of 24
Page 19-----------------------
discussions with the mods of said locally run groups should be had to canvess their
opinions in the spirit of goodwill - at this stage if they oppose a freegle group for the
area one should not be formed. This issue should be reexamined once other
organisation aspects of freegle have been determined.
If a TFN group is being run locally then I feel discussion/dialogue should be started to
find out if that group would first like to migrate to Freegle or another recycling
network/organisation. If the group is running successfully then a stay should be placed
on forming a new Freegle or other group. If that TFN group is not being run in a
successful manner then I feel that a Freegle (or other) group should be started to offer
the local community a decent method of recycling.
yes in partly covered areas, not yet in fully covered areas
see reply in question 17 (Returning Officer cross referencing: Reply was ‘These groups
will no longer be local when they are run by MF although I feel we should at least try
and make contact with the owner/moderator of these groups first’)
Yes but only where "partly" covers less than 50% of area or population in question
Consider on a case by case basis.
Question 17: Should we approve groups in areas partly or fully covered by locally-run Freecycle My
Freecycle groups?
Yes - but the new group created for that area should be willing to have the FC group
merge with it at some point in the future if they decide they want to leave.
I think we should consider groups, but if possible consult with Freegle moderators
operating in or close to that area. I'm assuming that there are still some contacts at
local levels between moderators of different groups.
As above on ouestion 15 (Returning Officer cross referencing: Reply was ‘We should not
consider MF or imod run but may be ask the yahoo groups if they have any intention of
moving’)
yes we should consider groups but with a set limit
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
We should consider groups in areas where an existing Freecycle My Freecycle group is
operating in a way that is clearly not compatible with the objectives of Freegle.
see above (Returning Officer cross referencing: Replies were ‘consideration for a set
time period if they havent moved in that time then newgroups should not be left
hanging in def, consideration should also be given to any work in local area new go may
haveone to publicise group’ and ‘see above but only in considering all other reuse
organisations’)
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 19 of 24
Page 20-----------------------
The local group should decide if any group should be approved which may operate in
their area
Yes but only after making an announcement that we're going to start doing this and we
should give the local Freecycle mod(s) first refusal to run the Freegle group.
Yes consider them, but take into consideration feelings of local Freegle group mods. As
has been stated on Central or Structure it's possible that local Freegle groups may have
a good working relationship with existing My Freecycle group mods and any new groups
being approved may result in breakdown of this.
Unsure about this, too
as above (Returning Officer cross referencing: Reply was ‘discussions with the mods of
said locally run groups should be had to canvess their opinions in the spirit of goodwill -
at this stage if they oppose a freegle group for the area one should not be formed. This
issue should be reexamined once other organisation aspects of freegle have been
determined.’)
Yes we should consider groups in areas with a locally run 'My Freecycle' group simply
because there are many groups in the Freegle network and others where MF groups
have already been set up to replace the original group.
yes in partly covered areas, not yet in fully covered areas
These groups will no longer be local when they are run by MF although I feel we should
at least try and make contact with the owner/moderator of these groups first
Question 18: Until now we have been giving Freecycle groups time to consider moving over. When
should that thinking time be over?
Indefinitely if the FC group is know to work amicably alongside Freegle groups.
1 month, but with notification, and hopefully assistance offered from neighbouring
Freegle group mods where poss.
Never
Well give them perhaps six months, but if anytime after that time a group still wants to
apply to move over, be willing to consider the application, if they can provide
reasonable reasons for wanting to do so.
They should be always welcome
Never
Whenever they want to or have had enough of FC
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 20 of 24
Page 21-----------------------
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
At no time should a Freecycle Group be turned away from joining Freegle.
December 11th 2009.That would be 3 months from the inception of "Freegle" and also
allow a week or two to approach relevant Freecycle groups if we wished to do so,
before the 11Dec09 deadline.
Can move over at anytime
They should be left to make the decision themselves.
no limit
indefinite leave door always open
Make contact with individual groups to see if they intend to move at anytime in the
future, then alow 1 year to give them the chance to change their mind.
31 December 2009
They should all be asked if they are considering moving over and given a month to
decide. After that, freegle groups should be allowed/encouraged in those areas. We
cannot be setting up a new national network and say there will be gaps in the coverage
because there are freecycle groups there.
5 years at least
By the end of this year/start of next year
NEVER! Locally run, Yahoo based groups should ALWAYS be given the opportunity to
move over. Group owners change and the next Owner might well be WANTING to
Freegle-ise the group. Abdn may be TFN for now, but this will likely change at some
point. Just give them time and they will see the light. We are NOT competing with
Freecycle, we are providing a refuge for when it implodes. We must NOT be seen as
blackmailing or holding a gun to their heads! That is Deron Diplomacy at it's worst!
Indefinitely
Make contact with freecycle groups first to see if they will move over if not then set up
a freegle group
End of this Year / Cut Off Date
where possible, consult with existing GOs. Those that will move should be given time for
organisation, seu 3 months. Those who aren't considering have already had long
enough.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 21 of 24
Page 22-----------------------
Question 19: When an application is received, should the Freecycle group/s in question be
contacted and given one last chance to move?
TFN should be treated the same as any other reuse group
Freegle should be independent of Freecycle, they can make up their own minds
In principal I'd say yes, but perhaps it's worth consulting with Freegle mods who know
owners of the groups that haven't moved over.
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
No pressure should be put on any group to shange if they don't want to.
I really don't know! Maybe this needs more discussion? I have compelling reasons for
both yes and no options. Sorry.
YES
1 week
No ultimatums
1 year to give the freecycle group time to change their mind, but they should be told to
remove EF / imods / inactive owners immediatly, if not then 1 month.
another option would be to announce the thinking time left on IAFCM and not give
individual notices
see answer to q 18. I think they should all be asked. (Returning Officer cross
referencing: Reply to question 18 was ‘They should all be asked if they are considering
moving over and given a month to decide. After that, freegle groups should be
allowed/encouraged in those areas. We cannot be setting up a new national network
and say there will be gaps in the coverage because there are freecycle groups there.’)
they should be contacted, and considered like any freegle group
if a notice period is given, it should be 1 week only
This question is vague and does not specify if the group in question is local Yahoo or MF
Imod. Therefore I cannot answer except from the standpoint that if they are IMOD then
gloves off and no holds barred. If they are locally run on Yahoo we should NOT be
starting a new group in that area, period.
they should notify of their intention to move
This situation shouldn't arise.
Max 3 months. Some groups won't be able to make a rapid move.
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 22 of 24
Page 23-----------------------
Question 20: It has been suggested that where there is an overlap in area between an existing
Freecycle group and a proposed Freegle group, we should not approve a new Freegle
group if the existing Freecycle group has good relationships with nearby Freegle groups,
but we should approve applications in areas where the Freecycle group is never
planning to move or is unfriendly. NB (please note - If this option gets a ‘yes’ result it
would have to be considered further to decide exactly how this would be done and
would need to wait for things like an appeals procedure to be in place before it was
implemented.)
can we find out what Freecycle's policy is towards Freegle and reach a national
agreement?
No we are not in competition with FC, it is about keeping stuff out of landfill and
therefore FC and Freegle should operate in separate areas.
Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active functioning
reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any other
"Banner". Why duplicate?
not sure
how can you define friendly unfriendly? friendly with other groups may be but is grp run
well or seeming to run well?
The local group should have the final say in who is approved in their area
See my previous points, and yes if not likely to move over anytime soon.
Each case should be decided separately, for the moment at least, depending on
whether the local freecycle group is 'friendly'. Obviously we are probably still in an
interim phase, but as I have already said, if we are a separate network, why should we
be solicitous about Freecycle groups other than ones that there is some special
relationship with?
Yes, but with caveats. A local 'friendly' group may not be doing a good job, and
competition may be best for the environment.
Question 21: 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 20 will force an automatic ‘no’ result to this question)
Probably best to wait until the process is established. (The other options didn't really
make that clear)
see above
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 23 of 24
Page 24-----------------------
Yes - but only after neighbouring Freegle groups have been consulted.
unsure on this one as well
No - the interim group should not have the mandate to approve groups in areas with
Friendly locally run Freecycle groups
NO Groups should not be approved to cover areas already served by an active
functioning reuse/recycle group whether freecycle, freegle, independent or under any
other "Banner". Why duplicate?
If someone wants to start up a Freegle Group anywhere and is taking on the format and
ethos then NOONE should say no!!!!!
not sure
A Freegle group should be allowed to be set up if there is no overlapping freegle group
irrelevant of how many Freecycle .MyFreecycle etc groups there are
See my previous points, and yes if not likely to move over anytime soon.
I don't believe an automatic no is the answer here - it should be determined what the
relationship is with the local Freegle group mods first.
Possibly
See my answer to Q20 (Returning Officer cross referencing: Reply to Question 20 was
‘They should all be asked if they are considering moving over and given a month to
decide. After that, freegle groups should be allowed/encouraged in those areas. We
cannot be setting up a new national network and say there will be gaps in the coverage
because there are freecycle groups there.’)
Groups should not have to be be "approved" - ALL groups should be welcomed unless
their is a clear reason why they should not be or an appeal against them being listed.
If a Freecycle group is demonstrably not serving the area, then a Freegle group approval
should be within the Interim group mandate. Waiting for a different structure will take
too long
Structure/Start Poll
20 November 2009 Page 24 of 24
