<div dir="ltr">I agree that it's beneficial to minimise constraints on council/LA, but also to empower them to protect us in the fashion we might expect. The current privacy setting seems a good compromise.<div><br></div><div>If we do move towards blocking member requests for access to the register, we need to consider the case where council becomes corrupt, hostile or frivolous. A non-council moderated mechanism is required to be able to contact all members. This could be as simple as a web form, accessible only to members, that council are obligated to maintain unimpeded, that messages all members. If such messages are sent with the "From" of the actual sender, we (members) could then block anyone who used the form inappropriately.</div><div><br></div><div>I am also confused about why Marcus hasn't clarified the original intent of his request. I think Dustyn's response is helpful here. Marcus, can you clarify (a) what you're trying to do; and (b) whether Dustyn's alternatives will meet your needs?</div><div>-N</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 00:30, Ambrose Andrews via linux-aus <<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
<div>On 1/1/23 15:17, phillip via linux-aus
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(0,0,255)">Perhaps,
the constitution can be amended in such a way that analytics
of membership can be made available on request, having the
details of individual members revealed serves no purpose
outside contact and demographics, why not replace it with data
and a contact request service?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm in favour of not putting additional detailed mandates for
what the council must or might do in the constitution. I'm in
favour of not imposing lots of limitations on what council can
agree to do if it wants to. The problem with the current wording
is that it might be able to used to limit the ability of council
to act in the interests of members. Putting specific ways the
council *can* act in the interest of members in the constitution
seems unnecessary and might imply that they can't do other
unspecified things. The main reason people seem to want details
of members is not for data analytics, but to communicate with
them. There *might* be some argument for explicitly saying
something about making available some avenue to communicate
indirectly with members in some limited way (preferably compatible
with protecting privacy and agency of members) without going into
detail about the form. <br>
</p>
<p> -AA.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank">linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au</a></blockquote></div>