Start Group Report 2009-12

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.

December 31st 2009

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

Mostly general discussion while waiting for the Committee results.
1. Esther has agreed to liaise with the `people group` regarding the procedure
for groups appealing against decisions made by the start team.
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.
3. Discussion into how some people will always interpret facts differently and
so there will always be disagreement about how poll results are interpreted.
We are pleased to report that no such disagreement was received so the
interpretation of the last poll can now be regarded as fact.
4. It was requested that records of these summaries were put on Central files.
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. Also discussed having a moderator only access on the one
stop for group summaries etc. Some felt that anyone unwilling to join and read
the files on Central would probably not bother to access it, others that it
could be less imposing just to have all information available for new moderators
to dip in as they wished.
It was decided to leave it open for a poll question.
6. We discussed members leaving Freegle and the overall process as it is felt
that overall responsibility for carrying out the procedure should rest with the
start team who will have the structure in place to ensure the correct
people/groups are notified and records updated.

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

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

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

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

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.
Jean

Back to   Freegle_Start forward to Start Group Report 2010-01