Add the parental consent form, and confirm what IJNDD actually says

[tytremblay]

Closes the two items the launch checklist was waiting on: the district-policy question in §8, and the consent form itself.

IJNDD says less than we assumed

Melrose's policy is not the MASC model §8 was reasoning from. It is a locally drafted IJNDD — Electronic Communication/Social Media, adopted June 12, 2018, and it contains neither clause §8 quoted, nor the "improper fraternization" language §8 attributed to it. Its operative provision reads:

Educators who wish to communicate with students or families on an individual basis should: (a) use their district e-mail account or web portal accounts rather than alternative media, and (b) inform families which social media are to be used for school business.

"Should," in a policy that says "shall not" and "must" in the clauses on either side of it — and half (b) presupposes that non-district platforms do carry school business, or there would be nothing to tell families about. Our employee-mentor is not barred from Slack.

Two consequences:

• The district_observer seat is goodwill, not compliance. The clause that would have required it is absent.
• The real constraint on that mentor is clause (k) — coach messages go to all team members — which is stricter than §4.1. Team channels satisfy it; group DMs do not. Enforced by the employee manual, deliberately not by hawk-mod.

IJNDD also puts an M.G.L. c. 66 §10 public-records burden on that mentor personally. export-conversation covers the substance; the forward-to-school-e-mail expectation is one to settle with the principal.

The consent form

docs/consent-form.md carries YPP §4.3's audit disclosure to both students and parents, the Slack CSS §IV notice of what is collected and shared, and IJNDD's requirement that families be told which platforms carry team business.

It leads with Slack keeping everything for as long as the workspace exists, and describes the team's records as a much smaller copy on top of that. The reverse framing made the deletion promise read as more total than it can be — Slack gives no way to remove one student's messages, and the form now says so.

Consent is unbundled: the media release is a separate form, and nothing optional appears on this page. Deletion-on-request is not offered, because it would not be honored.

Three promises that outrun the code

Filed rather than fixed here:

• Purge records past the retention period #3 — nothing purges at the retention deadline
• Add a revoke-consent CLI subcommand #4 — revokeConsent() has no caller, so withdrawal cannot be performed
• Bulk export for the monthly Drive archive #5 / Apply the retention clock to the Google Drive archive #6 — the monthly Drive archive needs a bulk export and its own retention

Also opened #7, to investigate huddle tracking.

Rendering

npm run render:form → HTML + PDF from one source, so what parents read on a phone and what they sign cannot drift. Puppeteer and markdown-it are devDependencies; the runtime image does not carry them, and --ignore-scripts means Chromium needs npx puppeteer browsers install chrome once.

Still open for a human

• "Two screened adults" appears as a hard number in the form. True today; false the moment a third person gets Owner/Admin or Drive access.
• "we will arrange another way to keep your student informed" commits to a fallback for a declining parent that nobody has designed.
• The rendered PDF has not been visually reviewed — worth checking where the page breaks land before it goes to families.
• Season inferred as 2027 from form version 2027.1.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code