Mercurial > hg > rsof
view 7vt/fmh_2009-03-08.xml @ 583:bf1c57331bc4
one typo, ready for S&A
author | Henry S Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> |
---|---|
date | Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:56:18 +0000 |
parents | 885e1a747bca |
children |
line wrap: on
line source
<?xml version='1.0'?> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='../../../lib/xml/doc.xsl'?> <!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "../../../lib/xml/doc.dtd" [ <!ENTITY pound '£'> ]> <doc> <head> <title>Future of 7 VT working group: Sixth meeting</title> <author>This informal summary by Henry S. Thompson, Convenor</author> <date>Held at 7 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh on 8 March 2009, 7:30 p.m.</date> </head> <body> <div> <title>Attendance</title> <p>Present: Alison Burnley, Madeleine Harding, Phil Lucas, Brian Mayes, Laurie Naumann, Eileen Schott, Henry Thompson (in the clerk's chair)</p> </div> <div> <title>External lettings survey forms, and anecdote</title> <p>Anthony Buxton shared a number of completed survey forms filled in by external letting clients. ES reviewed these. There were 28 forms, 24 from 2008: we don't know what proportion of the total clients this represents. Most of the tick-box ratings are good or excellent. There are positive comments about individual staff being helpful, the negative comments are about rooms being too small, or cold, or the state of the toilets. The one thing that looks like it could be improved is "the accuracy of information received".</p> <p>HST talked with Anthony about an example which he had heard of from a friend, in which a group had stopped a long-standing regular let because they could no longer bring their sandwiches.</p> </div> <div> <title>Review of envisaging futures</title> <p>Brainstorming</p> <list> <item>Day-time letting only?</item> <item>Quaker Centre?</item> <item>Full-service Rain Forest Cafe? Year-round? <list> <item>Rain Forest Cafe and/or Festival to pay for the kitchen refit, over time?</item> </list> </item> <item>Quaker presence?</item> <item>Eliminate regular bookings in favour of blocks?</item> <item>A Quaker-only centre? <list> <item>From March AM: Simplify things and restrict to Quaker usage</item> </list> </item> <item>Move out <list> <item>And buy a building to be just a meeting house</item> <item>And use rented accommodation</item> <item>And meet as house groups</item> <item>And share a building, either new or rented—Nicholson Square Methodist Church; Southside Community Centre; new Prestonfield Community Centre</item> </list> </item> <item>Primarily seen as a physical resource for the AM, with other activities complementing that</item> <item>Simplify the food side? Reduce the kitchen to hot-drinks only?</item> <item>From March AM: Raise money to make the building more attractive [to lettings?]</item> <item>Being open to young Quaker groups?</item> <item>Doing (whatever we do) in <emph>our own space</emph></item> <item>Being a base for outreach?</item> <item>Provide courses for Quakers (and non-Quakers) -- Quaker Quest all year round</item> <item>Move kitchen to ground-floor, replacing office/Bow room, and make the foyer a real cafe [new from Anthony Buxton via HST after the meeting]</item> </list> </div> <div> <title>Food hygiene regulations</title> <p>We discussed the complexities of the interaction between details of use and details of regulations. We were uncomfortable with the extent to which the letter of the law has been applied, and wondered whether in practice we should be willing to formulate a level of not-quite-strictly enforcing some things. AM trustees are looking into this, but perhaps not with the urgency we need.</p> <p>The problem with people bringing in their own food is, we are told, the risk of cross-contamination, but most groups are now happy with having food catered in when an all-day event involves a meal.</p> </div> <div> <title>Towards a timetable</title> <p>HST attempted a brief exercise in working backwards from our notional deadline of 6 June for a report to AM.</p> <p>We asked ourselves, based on others' expectations, whether we will report on a series of options, their costs and benefits, or whether we will make "a recommendation". The general feeling seems to be not to make a recommendation.</p> <div> <title>Draft table of contents</title> <list type="enum"> <item>Background/history/introduction</item> <item>Financial background/situation</item> <item>Description of the building</item> <item>Current use of building (some history)</item> <item>Regulatory impact</item> <item> Alternative futures <list> <item>In 7 Victoria Terrace <list> <item>Less</item> <item>The Same</item> <item>More</item> </list> </item> <item>Elsewhere <list> <item>Own [build/refit/share]</item> <item>Hire [sole tenants/share]</item> </list> </item> </list> </item> </list> </div> </div> <div> <title>Next time</title> <p>Agree means for gathering input from interested constituencies.</p> <p>Discuss regulatory impact situation with Mark Hutcheson.</p> </div> <div> <title>Actions review and new actions</title> <p>HST to get the Kath Russell report [<name>pending</name>], and some letting evaluation forms, say from 4Q2008, and circulate [<name>done</name>]. Also ask if any summary or collation has been done [<name>done</name>, answer is 'no'].</p> <p>HST to ask John Phillips for an electronic version of his notes for us</p> <p>HST to ask Ken Jobling where to find the details of how food hygiene regulations apply depending on exactly what's happening. [<name>pending</name>]</p> <p>HST to invite Mark Hutcheson to one of our meetings at his earliest convenience, as Convenor of AM Trustees. [<name>done</name>]</p> </div> <div> <title>Next Meeting</title> <p>Our next meeting will be at 7 Victoria Terrace at 5:15pm on Sunday 22 March. Mark Hutcheson will join us at the beginning. We tentatively agreed on Friday 3 April 5:30pm for our next meeting after that.</p> <p>HST will be away on 22 March, PL will convene this meeting.</p> </div> </body> </doc>