FRA reps meeting (on the 13th Oct 207)

[leorcc]

Let me get this straight: The agenda was not published because of the names it contains?

Well here is a weird suggestion for version 18: publish them without names.

[ewan]

misconception that this forum is censored - including minors etc and should be used with this in mind

You cant have it two ways Andy, of course it is censored and membership is regulated. The degree of censorship is highly questionable though. I would undoubtedly get banned if I spoke my mind, perhaps even sued if you had your way. Is this good for the sports image? No siree

[leorcc]

Reading in the data protection act:

Sensitive personal data
In this Act €œsensitive personal data€ means personal data consisting of information as to€”

(a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b) his political opinions,
(c) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d) whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e) his physical or mental health or condition,
(f) his sexual life,
(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

I dont think this will be a problem in an agenda.

(Message edited by leorcc on October 12, 2007)

[maddox]

I see politicians at work.

The AGM agenda was not the correct version. So when was a correct version to be known? Tomorrow afternoon? So the people who are to be represented by the Elected FRA reprensatives cant put their view in. So the reps have to divine the wishes of the people they represent.

The 17th FRA agenda had named individuals contained in its text and therefore the FRA itself could have been liable under the data protection act.
Depends. Does any of the members mentioned in that document a problem with that fact? Maybe certain individuals that didnt make the proposals in those words and could get annoyed by the misinterpretation? Or people mentioned that didnt even proposed anything.

Like Tim Bauwens for the A123 testing. (and yes, I made sure I was permitted the use of Tims name here)

Leo, this is precisely the reason we approve documents before releasing them and publish them on the FRA website. This ensures that the final version contains no errors or information that should not be made public. Most of the items in the agenda were discussed at the AGM and regional reps are always happy to discuss anything with roboteers.

[maddox]

Kane Aston, still my question is, how can you ,as a rep approve a document if your electors cant give their view?
Guessing wont do Im afraid

Kane, i am not talking about the minutes, because as a former boardmember of several associations i am well aware of the need of their approval. But you dont need a meeting to approve publication of a agenda for a meeting. that is simply the job of the secretary.

[john_frizell]

Folks, Issues like the above are always more likely to be misunderstandings than conspiracy. While it is true that the membership was not formally consulted about the agenda, I think that our reps are likely to know where we stand. Mine does. I trust that next time a full agenda will be posted on this forum in advance and I think that, thanks to Dave, we are all aware of the issues before tomorrows meeting.
I trust our representatives to do their best for our sport. We need to support them so that our sport survives and grows.

Which still brings me to my post earlier in the week, our rep cant make it, who do i turn to?

[geeza]

Leo if your rep (in this case Marco?) then any issues you want him to raise should be passed on to the committe via email, letter etc from the rep.