Update For The Leadership Pages

Share discussions around the Classic Local Unit Website (LUWS).
SR Ward Clerk-p40
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Contact:

Update For The Leadership Pages

Postby SR Ward Clerk-p40 » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:52 am

The position of Teacher Improvement Coordinator was discontinued a year ago, but it still exists at the top of the "Other" category of ward leadership positions. Does anyone know when this will be removed?

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:58 am

Even though it was discontinued (which is news to me) people still might be receiving the calling so it might just be there for legacy issues.
- David

SR Ward Clerk-p40
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Contact:

Postby SR Ward Clerk-p40 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:14 am

Okay, I imagine it's possible that people might be receiving the calling if there are bishops and branch presidents that did not receive the letter instructing them to discontinue it, but is that a valid reason for the position to remain on ward Web sites? It would seem to me that it would perpetuate units not following the instructions of the First Presidency if indeed there are such units. If the First Presidency has instructed leaders to discontinue the calling, I would think that it would be incumbent upon those who update the format of official authorized Web sites of units of the Church to remove the calling.

Maybe if the position is removed from their Web sites, leaders that don't know about the discontinuation would ask what happened to position, and thereby learn of the directive.

At any rate, having the position with no one called to it, still exist on the Web sites of wards and branches that did receive the directive and are following it, makes it appear to those that do not know of the discontinuation that our bishoprics and branch presidencies are not issuing callings and doing their jobs.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:12 am

SR Ward Clerk wrote:Okay, I imagine it's possible that people might be receiving the calling if there are bishops and branch presidents that did not receive the letter instructing them to discontinue it,


Just to be clear, there was a directive to discontinue it as opposed to simply being omitted from the new CHI?

If it was to be discontinued, I'm surprised the change wasn't made to the pages.

SR Ward Clerk-p40
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Contact:

Postby SR Ward Clerk-p40 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:14 am

I believe it is probably best explained by the letter itself, which I have copied and pasted from http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,7608-1,00.html

I won't paste the reverse side of the letter, but you can read it at the site I referenced above. My bishopric hasn't received copies of the new CHI yet, so I don't know what it says, or doesn't say, about it.



November 17, 2006

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren:

Changes to the Teacher Improvement Program

The positions of stake teacher improvement coordinator and ward teacher improvement coordinator have been discontinued. Quarterly teacher improvement meetings have also been discontinued. Details are on the reverse side of this letter [see below].
We encourage bishops to teach priesthood and auxiliary leaders their responsibility for the quality of gospel teaching in their organizations, as outlined in this letter and on pages 300–306 in the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders.

Sincerely yours,

Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas S. Monson
James E. Faust

The First Presidency

User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Postby WelchTC » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:42 am

It's most likely that the Web site got overlooked during the change. I'll make sure that the team is aware of the issue.

Tom

SR Ward Clerk-p40
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Contact:

Postby SR Ward Clerk-p40 » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:12 am

Thanks for your time Tom, that would be cool.

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Policy/Design link?

Postby dobrichelovek » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:06 am

Not to be critical, but this brings up a point that was made regarding the requirement of Stakes to post the PS/RS lessons. Things aren't always designed based on a plan, but how the implementer thought it should be. What is the link between policy/ policy changes and design (or website design changes)? Is the technology group just working on the side, trying to do the best they can (which I applaud you for) or is there consideration of the technology impacts when things change, at least in terms of communication of policies and structure changes to the technology group? If these things are being communicated, which I believe they should be (but I can envision it might be not perfect at this point), is there a process by which those notifications are reviewed for impact on existing and future IT projects like LUWS and other things?

I think what you've done so far is great, but this seems to be an area that could be improved upon. There's my attempt at kind, constructive criticism.;)

User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Postby WelchTC » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:41 am

dobrichelovek wrote:Not to be critical, but this brings up a point that was made regarding the requirement of Stakes to post the PS/RS lessons. Things aren't always designed based on a plan, but how the implementer thought it should be. What is the link between policy/ policy changes and design (or website design changes)? Is the technology group just working on the side, trying to do the best they can (which I applaud you for) or is there consideration of the technology impacts when things change, at least in terms of communication of policies and structure changes to the technology group? If these things are being communicated, which I believe they should be (but I can envision it might be not perfect at this point), is there a process by which those notifications are reviewed for impact on existing and future IT projects like LUWS and other things?

I think what you've done so far is great, but this seems to be an area that could be improved upon. There's my attempt at kind, constructive criticism.;)

I'm not sure that I am answering your question correctly or not but I'll attempt to. If I understand you correctly, you are basically asking if the technology group conceives, designs, and implements the project without proper contact from the "sponsoring" organization. Is feedback about problems, issues, new features, etc. effectively communicated with the organization in charge of ensuring that policies are followed? To answer this question, I'll share with you how we are organized at the Church. We have multiple departments (Missionary work, Priesthood, Technology which is called ICS, etc). ICS is purely a service department. With but a few exceptions, we don't conceive of and develop projects on our own. We turn to the other departments for work that they want done. So each project would have a product manager who is an employee of the department and a program manager who is an employee of ICS. These two work together to make sure that the product is built according to the customers (departments) specifications. ICS's role is to create the products in a cost effective, efficient, and timely manner. The product manager's role is to ensure that the project team has all of the necessary requirements (including policies, etc) for the project.

We try to isolate the developers from the DIRECT input of the end users. What I mean by that is we don't want a developer making decisions about what should be added/fixed/changed. We want the product manager to make those decisions.

One of the focuses that I have while working for the Church is to see that feedback from these forums get into the right hands...i.e., the product managers.

Tom

crockett-p40
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:43 am

Postby crockett-p40 » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:24 am

In this specific case, the design requirement that the developers received from the product manager was that PR/RS lessons should be input from the stake. Since that time there has been plenty of feedback that wards/branches should be able to do this. No, developers didn't just implement this on their own.


Return to “Classic Ward & Stake Sites (LUWS)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest