Thanks for that feedback russelhltn. I hadn't seen this much of this technology policy before now, and I'll look forward to seeing "something more detailed in the coming weeks."
I'll provide some more details about what we're doing in my ward so we can analyze the factors at play. The bishopric is aware that the EQ presidency is using a handful of Google groups to open channels of communication between EQ members (since the Elders and HPG recently combined we've been making an effort to help them become acquainted, build trust, promote mentorship). A couple weeks ago, I surveyed the newly combined group for their social interests, and then I created corresponding Google groups: golf, basketball, frisbee, hiking, cycling, etc. Then I emailed invitations to the quorum members to join these Google groups, so now the quorum members can voluntarily join Google groups that match their recreational preferences. I call the groups Affinity Groups. The theory here is that brethren who know each other better will serve more readily together (which will further deepen the bonds of trust & brotherhood), and these preference groups are the low-hanging fruit (a phase one --> phase two will be building brotherhood among men that have little in common).
So should we be worried about this policy? Well, maybe, maybe not. In it's current form, the Affinity Groups don't store a ton of personal information: just names, recreational preferences, and email addresses (and users can remove their registration from the group at any particular moment). Also it's important to note that the affinity groups, as envisioned by our EQ presidency, are meant to expand beyond our quorum, beyond our ward. We have a vision of having groups that include non-members and members of neighboring wards and stakes. We want our quorum to shine like a light on a hill, an example of how to enjoy and generate healthy, wholesome sociality.
Our bishopric hasn't voiced any concerns so far, and in fact both of the bishop's counselors have joined one or more Affinity Groups. Do they know about this particular policy, though? I'm not sure. If they do, maybe they aren't speaking up because they don't consider the shared names and hobby interests to be "MLS data" or "membership information." Also, there is the fact that our EQ leadership merely encourages the brethren to join the Affinity Groups, as opposed to simply adding the data to a third-party database without anybody's permission. I've considered directly adding brethren to some Google groups, but based on this policy I think I'll keep it voluntary and opt-in only.
I understand that there is some risk of oversharing sensitive data with unintended parties. I won't plan on adding birthdays or other potentially compromising information: like family problems, spiritual challenges, psychological profiles, etc. I'll consider policy with my presidency. We have compiled some reports with such sensitive information within Google Docs, and now I'm wondering if we should print those and delete the electronic versions.
Lots to ponder. Thanks again.