Re: How the council breached their constitution - membersregister request section 7

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.

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.

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?
-N



On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 00:30, Ambrose Andrews via linux-aus <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On 1/1/23 15:17, phillip via linux-aus wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>   -AA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
> linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus

To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org