Update 01_conditions_governing_access.md

[regineheberlein]

closes #43

[dacscommunity]

Feel this should not be a requirement for compliance. Detailing the reason for restrictions imposed at the discretion of the archivists - such as the mental health of a deceased relative of the creator - will expose the issue itself.

[mjhugh]

I support this proposal and already practice it. In response to the concern stated above, in my experience less specific language can be used that doesn't reveal too much but still gives a reason for the restriction, such as "to protect the privacy of family members", "per donor request", or other phrasing, depending on the situation.

[michelsd]

I fully agree with @mjhugh and I'll go further to say that an archivist should think very hard before imposing restrictions based on their own view of what might embarrassing or otherwise harmful to someone without asking them. Despite their good intentions, such actions have often led to hiding the histories of marginalized groups, particularly LGBT and neurodivergent people.

[weatherlys]

This may not be intentional, but it seems that the direction is now to state "There are no restrictions on this collection" rather than "This collection is open...". We feel that the focus of the note should be on openness/availability rather than restriction where possible. In addition, consider including contact information in this note for users who may want to discuss the restriction.

[jz721]

I agree with @mjhugh. An example that specifically addresses the donor privacy concerns would definitely help.