The use of external sites?

[scion-p40]

BTW, Google calendars were previously searchable, but now require an invitation to join.

[aebrown]

Things that the ward website does not do that others do:

Ability to download, upload, & sync calendars, etc.

You can download calendars using standard calendar exchange formats (CSV, iCal, vCal).

As for the rest of the list, they're good suggestions. Everyone acknowledges that the LUWS calendaring could be improved. I think Google has a few more developers than the Church, so it's not surprising that they have a better calendaring system. If Google's site is out of policy for Church use, however, it doesn't matter much how many cool features they have.

But there are efforts underway to update the LUWS calendaring, along with many other features. If you would like to contribute your suggestions, please do so on the LUWS: Feedback and Suggestions wiki page. I took a quick look and many of your suggestions are already there, but some are not.

[russellhltn]

Things that the ward website does not do that others do:

In the interests of balance, how about what LUWS does?

• Authenticates the user as a member of the church.
• Grants access based on where their current membership record resides and updates it automatically, granting access to the new stake while canceling access to the old one..
• Gives the leadership the ability to lock out a member.
• Operates on a server controlled by the church, not by someone who could have a secret agenda.

When dealing with the safety of the members, those are not trivial points. Granted, LUWS needs improvement. No one will say otherwise. And it's in the works.

In the gray areas of the policy, the question in my mind becomes when is it acceptable to sacrifice the above advantages for the features of a third-party offering?

[scion-p40]

Because Google calendars are now invitation only, those known to leaders can be added. If it works like Yahoo does, then they can also be dropped by admin. That serves the same purpose as outlined below.

[lajackson]

Because Google calendars are now invitation only, those known to leaders can be added. If it works like Yahoo does, then they can also be dropped by admin. That serves the same purpose as outlined below.

Except that the server, and thus the data, is not controlled by the Church. I have less of a problem with this on calendar data, than on membership data, of course.

[russellhltn]

Because Google calendars are now invitation only, those known to leaders can be added. If it works like Yahoo does, then they can also be dropped by admin. That serves the same purpose as outlined below.

That may be OK for small groups, but the authentication process becomes a real problem when you scale up to a ward.

[bryced-p40]

That may be OK for small groups, but the authentication process becomes a real problem when you scale up to a ward.

Regarding the features:

• Authenticates the user as a member of the church.

I don't even want this. We have non-members in our boundaries that are fairly active in ward activities. I would like them to have access to the calendar.

• Grants access based on where their current membership record resides and updates it automatically, granting access to the new stake while canceling access to the old one..

I don't want this feature either. This means I have to wait two weeks or possibly (a lot) longer until a the ward clerk finds the records. With Google calendars I just get their email and add them. In my highly transitive student ward this is a deal-breaker.

• Gives the leadership the ability to lock out a member.

Google Calendars can do this. Probably most calendar software can do this.

• Operates on a server controlled by the church, not by someone who could have a secret agenda.

This just sounds paranoid.

[mkmurray]

• Operates on a server controlled by the church, not by someone who could have a secret agenda.

This just sounds paranoid.

The "secret agenda" part...perhaps. But when we are talking about Ward Websites in general with all of their sensitive information (most notably, the privacy and protection of youth) then it isn't so paranoid to have it centralized securely at the Church, rather than whatever each individual unit of the Church implements or uses (perhaps even ignorantly).

[russellhltn]

Regarding the features:

• Authenticates the user as a member of the church.

I don't even want this. We have non-members in our boundaries that are fairly active in ward activities. I would like them to have access to the calendar.

• Grants access based on where their current membership record resides and updates it automatically, granting access to the new stake while canceling access to the old one..

I don't want this feature either.

There are privacy and security issues. There is a reason the current LUWS is structured the way it is. You may not want it, but it's being imposed on everyone from above.