S-089 · A 90-day try-out

A club plan for Feedback Form Auto-Link

Use this as a starting point. Cross out what does not fit, add what is missing and make it your club's own.

Where this idea came from

Playbook entry: S-089 · Feedback Form Auto-Link
Theme: Theme 5: Digital, Data & Systems · Subtheme 6: Automation & Integration
Source material: Current playbook index title and category plus an internally authored detailed-guide draft

Initiative-specific development wave

How this draft was developed

These sources support general principles for digital, data and systems, accessibility, privacy, safety, systems or responsible governance; they are not an endorsement of Feedback Form Auto-Link, a finding that it suits any club or approval of its local design.

Primary references consulted

Rotary Clubs (Rotary International)
Used for: Rotary describes club participation through service, friendship, diversity, integrity and leadership, including online participation for people affected by schedules, mobility or distance.
Chapter 3: APP 3 Collection of solicited personal information (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner)
Used for: Personal-information collection should be lawful, fair, proportionate and minimised, with additional controls for sensitive information; each club must confirm how privacy law applies to it.
Chapter 11: APP 11 Security of personal information (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner)
Used for: Entities covered by the Privacy Act must take reasonable steps to protect personal information and destroy or de-identify it when it is no longer needed, subject to lawful retention requirements.
Small business cyber security guide (Australian Signals Directorate's Australian Cyber Security Centre)
Used for: A practical security baseline includes multi-factor authentication, software updates, regular tested backups and advice suited to the organisation's actual systems and risk.
Hosting accessible and inclusive online meetings and events (Australian Human Rights Commission)
Used for: Accessible online participation starts with platform choice, alternative dial-in access, accessible materials, inclusive facilitation, adjustment planning and accessible follow-up.

Candidate District material consulted

These records remain draft evidence and still need a human source decision.

Theme_4_All_80_Initiatives_Complete
The exact current-title crosswalk establishes a candidate legacy record for later comparison. No legacy code, unsupported claim or unchecked operational detail was copied into this draft; current official privacy, security, accessibility and governance controls take precedence.

Theme 5 source-assurance wave

What has been checked

5 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
5 attributed source claim(s) were mapped to their bounded use in this initiative.
Candidate District material remains separate and does not establish this result.

See each source's scope and limit

Rotary Clubs
Supports: Rotary club participation context and the value of accessible online or hybrid participation.
Does not establish: Product configuration, legal compliance, local suitability or approval of a named initiative.
Chapter 3: APP 3 Collection of solicited personal information
Supports: Data-minimisation, collection-purpose, proportionality and consent safeguards where the Privacy Act and APP 3 apply.
Does not establish: Whether a particular Rotary club is an APP entity or whether a proposed collection is lawful in its actual circumstances.
Chapter 11: APP 11 Security of personal information
Supports: Security, access, retention and disposal safeguards where the Privacy Act and APP 11 apply.
Does not establish: That a club's controls are reasonable, that the Privacy Act applies or that a particular retention period is correct.
Small business cyber security guide
Supports: A practical minimum cyber-security baseline for smaller organisations and volunteer-run systems.
Does not establish: That the baseline is sufficient for a club's actual risk, system architecture, supplier arrangements or legal obligations.
Hosting accessible and inclusive online meetings and events
Supports: Practical accessibility and inclusion safeguards for online participation.
Does not establish: Conformance of a particular platform, document or club process without user testing and local accessibility review.

What still needs a person to confirm

Confirm which privacy, records, safeguarding and other legal duties apply to the club and this local design.
Confirm current ClubRunner or other platform features, permissions, licence settings and supplier instructions in the club's actual account.
Test accessibility and alternative participation routes with affected members rather than inferring conformance from the guide.
Confirm every local fact, starting point, measure, cost, owner and claim before the club decides to proceed.
Resolve any candidate District-source provenance and approval decision without treating the candidate as controlled authority.

The source-verification release gate remains closed.

Checks still on hold

The current Theme 5 index controls the code and title. The exact-title legacy Digital candidate is recorded only as attributed, unapproved evidence and does not replace current identity, controls or source authority.
The connected Drive refresh returned an internal error on 9 August 2026. No unseen file was inferred or promoted; the 7 August intake, duplicate decisions, quarantines, rights boundaries and public-write permission hold remain in force and no sharing was changed.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: automation must not make formal decisions, create unwanted messages, copy unnecessary data or continue when integration ownership is unclear.
Formal human review has not started. Feedback Form Auto-Link remains an internal initiative-specific draft until all 1,000 initiatives reach the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.

1. Is this worth trying here?

What we hope will change: Use Feedback Form Auto-Link to reduce repetitive administration through well-owned automation that can be checked and safely reversed.

What is happening in our club or community now?What is the smallest useful version we could try? What will we leave out?

Board contactPerson leading the workPerson checking what happened

2. Our 90-day try-out

What our club will do for Feedback Form Auto-Link
Step	What we will do	Who could lead it	Our date	How we will know it is done
1	Write the decision brief for Feedback Form Auto-Link: define which repetitive step can be automated without losing consent, accessibility, oversight or an exception route, the starting evidence, people affected, local authority, resource limit, success signals and stop conditions.	Board sponsor and information owner	Week one	An approved decision and boundary brief
2	Identify users and non-users, map access and digital-confidence barriers, explain data use and permissions and retain an equivalent human or non-digital route where essential participation is involved. Apply this specifically to Feedback Form Auto-Link and record which relevant experiences or users are still missing.	Board sponsor and information owner with the access and privacy contacts	Weeks one and two	A participant, access and information-handling plan
3	Build and test a reversible automation built from a mapped human workflow, test data and an exception route for Feedback Form Auto-Link; complete the Feedback Form Auto-Link Automation Test and Exception Log, rehearse the boundary wording and confirm who may decide, refer, pause, recover or close the work.	System lead, privacy contact and access tester	Before the trial	A tested automation test and exception log and delivery pack
4	Use synthetic or minimised test data, least privilege, versioned configuration, accessible instructions, exception handling and a rollback; do not expose live credentials or private member information. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether Feedback Form Auto-Link advances controlled automation.	System lead, privacy contact and access tester	Weeks three to eight	A controlled activity and evidence record
5	Compare the evidence with the starting point, validate meaning with affected participants or users, record gaps and unintended effects and prepare a tested automation record with owner, permissions, failure handling and rollback evidence without overstating what the trial proves.	System lead, privacy contact and access tester with an independent reviewer	Within seven days of the trial	A tested automation record with owner, permissions, failure handling and rollback evidence
6	Make and record the authorised continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision for Feedback Form Auto-Link; explain the reason, complete every action, close unnecessary records and schedule the 90-day follow-up.	Service owner and independent reviewer	By day 90	A published participant response, closed action register and next-step decision

3. Checks before we start

Things our club needs to check
Question	What it means for us	Who will check	Done?
Check the idea with the people affected and confirm its purpose, owner and practical limits before putting it into use.
Name the system and data owners, restrict access, provide an accessible alternative and document how errors or failures will be recovered.
The club proceeds with Feedback Form Auto-Link without respecting this boundary: automation must not make formal decisions, create unwanted messages, copy unnecessary data or continue when integration ownership is unclear. — Put the boundary in the brief and participant information, give the delivery lead stop authority and move any excluded matter to its responsible process.
The system excludes members or creates a single digital path for essential participation. — Test with varied users, provide accessible instructions and retain an equivalent supported alternative.
Permissions, integrations or exports expose more personal information than the purpose requires. — Minimise fields, use least privilege, test permissions, control exports and review access after the trial.
A volunteer-built workflow becomes unowned, inaccurate or impossible to recover. — Name a service owner, document dependencies, keep tested backups and rollback steps and schedule a maintenance decision.
The current Theme 5 index controls the code and title. The exact-title legacy Digital candidate is recorded only as attributed, unapproved evidence and does not replace current identity, controls or source authority.
The connected Drive refresh returned an internal error on 9 August 2026. No unseen file was inferred or promoted; the 7 August intake, duplicate decisions, quarantines, rights boundaries and public-write permission hold remain in force and no sharing was changed.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: automation must not make formal decisions, create unwanted messages, copy unnecessary data or continue when integration ownership is unclear.
Formal human review has not started. Feedback Form Auto-Link remains an internal initiative-specific draft until all 1,000 initiatives reach the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

4. What changed?

What we will keep an eye on
What matters	Where we are now	What we hope to see	How we will check	Who
After 90 days, review Feedback Form Auto-Link. Look for time saved, fewer handoff errors, visible exceptions and successful recovery when an automated step fails.
Feedback Form Auto-Link produces a tested automation record with owner, permissions, failure handling and rollback evidence by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations, participation gaps and unintended effects stated.
People affected can explain the purpose, their choices, the boundary and how to raise an access, privacy, safety or governance concern.
The trial shows whether controlled automation improved from the recorded starting point without shifting hidden workload, risk or exclusion elsewhere.
Every accepted action has an owner, due date and completion evidence, and the club records a reasoned continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision.

After 30 days

Is it reaching the right people? Is anything unsafe, unfair or harder than expected?

After 60 days

Make one useful change based on what people have told you.

After 90 days

Compare with where you started. Decide whether to change it, continue it or stop.

Made for this initiative

Tailored supporting documents

These working documents use the decisions, safeguards and evidence needs of this initiative. Complete them with the people affected and keep the agreed version with the club's project record.

Feedback Form Auto-Link User Need and System Boundary Brief

Define the user problem, information flow and excluded uses.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Data Inventory and Purpose Map

Link every field and transfer to a necessary purpose.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Privacy, Consent and Notice Check

Make information handling and choices clear before collection or publication.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Access and Permission Matrix

Apply least privilege and accountable access reviews.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Accessible User Test Script

Test the real task with varied users and alternatives.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Configuration and Change Register

Maintain a reviewable record of settings, integrations and releases.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Incident, Exception and Recovery Card

Give volunteers a safe response route when the workflow fails or data is exposed.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Handover, Backup and Maintenance Plan

Keep the service operable beyond one volunteer.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Automation & Integration Delivery Check

Test whether Feedback Form Auto-Link genuinely advances controlled automation within the subtheme boundary.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Automation Test and Exception Log

Prove the automation works safely for normal, exception and failure cases.

Open supporting document

Feedback Form Auto-Link Evidence, Decision and Close-Out Record

Bring the evidence, limitations, participant response and final decision for Feedback Form Auto-Link into one accountable record.

Open supporting document

Before your club says yes

Does the idea fit?

Talk with the people it is meant to serve and check that the need is real.

We have checked this

Who can say yes?

Name the person or group that can approve the work, spending and any safety arrangements.

We have checked this

Are people protected?

Check privacy, consent and safety. Collect only the information you genuinely need.

We have checked this

Can everyone take part?

Check the language, format, place, technology and cost for barriers.

We have checked this

Are the facts and permissions right?

Check names, claims, images, quotations, partner references and Rotary branding.

We have checked this

How will we learn?

Note where things stand now, check in at 30, 60 and 90 days, and decide what to do next.

We have checked this

Worksheets for your club

Open them online, print them or change them to suit the way your club works.

Question set

Use this worksheet to hear what people experienced and decide what to change next.

Open worksheet

Response log

Use this worksheet to note where things stand and choose a few useful signs that will help the club decide what to do next.

Open worksheet