Wasn’t that then clarified in that discussion as that weeding communal areas wasn’t a good requirement to track hours of to satisfy the area access policy requirements of hours volunteered? And, that instead the better use of volunteer hours would be to weed whack the communal areas to control weed height?
It’s a pretty involved discussion Access policy and it hardly seems fair to extract one statement that can only be interpreted within the context of a portion of a proposed access policy and with the later explanation of the better use of volunteer hours.