Stake/Ward File Sharing Site

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
mprusse
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: Littleton, CO-USA

#11

Post by mprusse »

RussellHltn wrote:You could have them upload to the stake area of LUWS. I think the limit is 1MB per file.

The only way around the third party site concerns is to create your own site. Is that what you are asking?
I know that creating our own file sharing site is an option but we're lacking in real techie people to start that up and then maintain it. I did review Google Docs and may still try that but didn't need the file creation capabilities, etc.

Thank you everyone for your input up to this point. I'll keep monitoring this thread to see about other possibilities.
User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 4734
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

#12

Post by Mikerowaved »

boomerbubba wrote:Of course that policy is in effect. Clearly a local unit should not start its own public web site. But that is not what macsense is seeking to do.
I hear what you are saying, but just be aware the policy doesn't make any distinction between public and private sites either. Interpret it as you may. I just thought I would point that out.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#13

Post by RossEvans »

macsense wrote:I did review Google Docs and may still try that but didn't need the file creation capabilities, etc.

There are two technical factors I can see that might be considered limitations. The first is that uploaded files are converted to Google Docs' own format, not just stored as native .doc, .xls, .csv files, etc. (That is different from a pure file-sharing solution such as that advertised by DriveHQ.) The second is a per-file size limit that is not terribly generous.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34422
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#14

Post by russellhltn »

mkmurray wrote:Sounds third party to me. In reality, anything not on Church-hosted servers is third party.
Uhhhh, how so? Wouldn't a member be considered party one or party two? My understanding of the third party rule was that we couldn't know the true agenda of anyone else.

For everyone else, it was macsense who first brought up the third party issue in the initial post. Since that seemed to be the most limiting restriction, that's the one I reacted to.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#15

Post by RossEvans »

Mikerowaved wrote:I hear what you are saying, but just be aware the policy doesn't make any distinction between public and private sites either. Interpret it as you may. I just thought I would point that out.

I don't see that using something like Google Docs constitutes a unit "site" at all under any commonsense understanding of the term, a strict reading of the policy letter or its context. A Docs user just accesses an account on Google.com and the shared document is accessible there, along with any documents shared by friends, family or coworkers. It is Google that develops and operates the web site for various and sundry end users, who in this case might happen to include local priesthood leaders sharing information with each other.

Google, Yahoo, my own ISP, etc. also operate web sites that are interfaces to their generic email services. But I know of nothing in Church policy or practice that prohibits members or leaders from using such email services in furtherance of their callings. In fact, email is used pretty routinely by bishoprics and other leaders. And it is not at all uncommon for a bishop, ward clerk, etc. to have a dedicated email account with an ordinary provider for the purpose of doing Church business. As for what content is appropriate for them to transmit by email, there does not seem to be a blanket policy. Once again, that is left to local priesthood leaders.
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#16

Post by marianomarini »

In our branch we use Google docs to share calendar and meetings agenda too.
Of course there are no informations about members in that documents.
I suggested DriveHQ because there are several security levels access and data can be cripted. Google docs are accessible at least to mainteiners, and hackers too.
So if I want to share private data I use Internet Services as DriveHQ.
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#17

Post by RossEvans »

marianomarini_vi wrote:I suggested DriveHQ because there are several security levels access and data can be cripted. Google docs are accessible at least to mainteiners, and hackers too.
So if I want to share private data I use Internet Services as DriveHQ.

I don't understand why DriveHQ is more secure than Google Docs, either with respect to internal maintenance or hackers. But I know very little about DriveHQ beyond what I read on its web pages.

Also, is there not a cost factor? It appears to me that if a customer uses the group and subgroup features of DriveHQ, or a signifcant amount of storage, the customer incurs charges of several hundred dollars per year.
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#18

Post by marianomarini »

boomerbubba wrote:I don't understand why DriveHQ is more secure than Google Docs, either with respect to internal maintenance or hackers. But I know very little about DriveHQ beyond what I read on its web pages.
Secury is garantee by cripted file. It can be done through DHQ system or/and your own.
This way neither DHQ mainteiners nor hackers can read your data without your password.
Also, is there not a cost factor? It appears to me that if a customer uses the group and subgroup features of DriveHQ, or a signifcant amount of storage, the customer incurs charges of several hundred dollars per year.
Free service allow 1 GB space. I think enough for office files (document, datasheet, ecc.).
But DHQ is not the better, you can find better supplier around Internet. It's just an example.
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 9860
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 am
Location: USA, TX

#19

Post by jdlessley »

boomerbubba wrote:As for what content is appropriate for them to transmit by email, there does not seem to be a blanket policy.
Actually there is some policy on this regarding the confidentiality of records found in the CHI, book1, p 150-151. While it does not address e-mail specifically it does address the confidentiality and security of reports, records and membership information. E-mail, falling under storing this information electronically, would require to be password protected. The practice of sending restricted information by unsecured e-mail may be commonplace but that in and of itself does not mean it is an approved method.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
MorettiDP
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

#20

Post by MorettiDP »

The Church has a system in 'filesend.ldschurch.org' (without address to avoid problems) to share files. I belive it's only to Church employees now, but it can change in future to be available to units share files with unit members.
Post Reply

Return to “General Clerk Discussions”