Translation: The Wondercafe model works, so let's fix it.

I am going to begin reflecting on my experience with the community gathered at the WonderCafe. Basically, I will reflect on the selection of text above. I believe that this provides us a standard by which we may in some small way measure how well the United Church of Canada has done in supporting and encouraging the project, representing a substantial investment of time, talent and money.

The basic question to be addressed is: Has the United Church of Canada, by its diverse ways and means, honoured the recommendations of the Emerging Spirit team specific to the potentials of WonderCafe (GC 40 - 2009)?

I will be interested in hearing both subjective and objective perspectives on the question. Of special value will be the perspective of those situated in or near the chairs where decisions are made. This seems important as the Comprehensive Review seeks input and insight by casting its net on the other side of the boat.

The report notes: "WonderCafe cannot exist and be effective...without strong engagement by a large number of people who also are actively involved in the life of the church..." This points me to a tentative thesis. Though the Cafe conversations included a broad spectrum of UCC persons, ordered and lay, there was a significant lack of participation by person most interested in have the project succeed and the investment well served. What does this say about stewardship of the investment?

This should be enough to prime the pump.

George

Hi Jae,

Not quite. The WonderCafe has been abandoned. It would take great humility for those who decided to walk away to change their minds. It is not likely going to happen.

My question is: What can we learn from the whole process, from inception, through execution, to a abandonment? Why did those well positioned to get behind the project, and the millions which funded it, decide against investing time and talent along the lines indicated by the report to GC 40?

George

Yes, good catch George. What I should have said is, The Wondercafe model works, so let's change things.

To truly answer that would require more insider knowledge than I possess.

[/quote]

IHi Jae,

I am hoping that some from the inside may come outside and share their points of view.

George

Hi GeoFee,

As a Commissioner to GC 40 my work in that regard ended at the rise of GC 41.

Likewise everything accomplished at GC40 is done and sustained only by the will of succeeding General Councils.

Because the membership of General Council is fluid the thoughts and feelings of any particular General Council are subject to change.  The boycott called for and rejected at GC 40 becomes essentially the boycott called for and supported at GC 41.

Nothing about the report has changed save for how it is being reacted to.

WonderCafe.ca is too expensive so it is having the plug pulled.

I'm amazed it lasted this long many in the Church would have preferred it never saw the light of day and that rather than wasting any portion of the Morrison bequest on Emerging Spirit of WonderCafe.ca all that money should have gone to helping the poor.

Judas may have hung himself millenia ago.  His ideas about ministry didn't die with him.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi revjohn,

The image of a plug being pulled has me thinking of some millions gone down the drain.

This comes close to what I am hoping to understand. The investment of many millions required accountability. That accountability was, in part if not in whole, reflected in the Emerging Spirit report to GC 40. The whole Church had opportunity, by consulting the report, to discover how the project was imagined, how it was executed, and what recommendations were provided to further the hopes expressed by the substantial investment.

It appears that the report's recommendations were not taken up in earnest. It appears that the investement of millions was not considered worthy of further investment. I am left to wonder what this implies. Do we imagine projects, obtain funding, deliver the projects and, when funding is no longer convenient, abandon projects?

I connect this with what the United church of Canada is now inviting us to consider as an alternative to the WonderCafe. My inquisitive mind wants to know why we did not invest in the Emerging Spirit recommendation that WonderCafe be expanded to serve a broader mandate? Why did we not begin to host seminars, discussion forums, information sharing, all of which would have "optimized" WonderCafe?

More pointedly, as is being asked on other threads, where were those in places of leadership who might, by their presence and engagement, have served as faithful stewards of the vision and investment of Emerging Spirit?

George

Hi GeoFee,

I think that is the estimation of some.  Heck go to the archives and you will find some who came here to make just that complaint.

The report was an accounting of the monies invested and what the Church got in return.  It was prelude to the question, "Will the Emerging Spirit Campaign continue?"  The resounding answer at GC 40 was "No.  It won't."  The overwhelming reason why many said no was simply because it was not self-sustaining and for it to continue something else would have to end.

WonderCafe.ca was the most successful part of the Emerging Spirit Campaign and it was salvaged.  The thinking was that now that it is up and running there will be no more advertizing so it can be a responsibility given to another department.  That is how it came to be a budget line in the Communications department.

So the last five years or so have been borrowed time.

Essentially that is exactly what is happening.

Firend DKS has noted that pattern pointing to Vision TV as one noteworthy example.

No money for it and asking for that money would have ended in a very loud no.  Emerging Spirit was not valued.  WonderCafe.ca only survived because folk were able to articulate its value.  Even then we had to bury the expense in something general like webservices.

Those who were given control of WonderCafe.ca after the Emerging Spirit campaign ended were essentially left raising Keith Howard's orphan.  I doubt any asked for the priviledge it probably just fell into their laps.

Like any other unloved child it accepted that a closet under the stairs was all it was being offered.  Now, that closet is needed for something else.  None who had leadership in the Emerging Spirit campaign kept those jobs.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Earlier to day I typed a fairly long post on the Holy Manners thread.  It gave my thoughts and my feelings to the closing of WC in light of the instructions for Holy Manners.  From my viewpoint I addressed the notion of 'How well did the actions of the national church illustrate each of  these ideals?'  My conclusion was 'Not at all well'.  Eventually, not wishing to upset those who made the decision I deleted it.   

At various times in my journey throuigh life I have given service as the President of  several organisations.  I have served as Chair to different committees, as Treasurer, as Secretary and lent my support to others in those positions.   It seems to me that the national offices of the UC operate differently from the organisations I worked with.  Anyone who declared that a program or service was to summarily be shut down would have had to face an uproar from the members.  The understanding was that the 'leaders' were responsible for staying awake - bringing possible problems forward for discussion long before a crisis arose - that programs deemed to to have value should be continued.  Of course, the groups I worked with didn't have huge amounts of cash - but wonderful programs were set in place and funds allowed for their continuance - frequently by brainstorming cheaper ways of achieving the same ends.

Hi John,

I have been distressed by the connection of money and vision. In this case, it seems that the vision, the passion, expressed while Emerging Spirit was being funded, evaporated when the funding ended. This, for me, renders the image Emerging Spirit ironic.

What follows where money is the principle animating mission?

I am not one who wants to muzzle the oxen, believing that a worker is deserving of a fair wage. My concern is for the inversion of priority, where work follows money rather than money follows work; a matter of the tail wagging the dog.

George

Hi Kay...

I appreciated your comment and am sorry I did not get to read your Holy Manners post before you removed it.

I think you have it about right, even though my heart would rejoice if my position were proven wrong. Perhaps we will hear from those who participated in the decision process? It seems they have some obligation to correct us if we are in error with our interpretation and understanding of the process leading to the abandonment of "Keith Howard's orphan".

I wonder what Keith has in mind concerning these things?

George

I think it's important not to isolate WonderCafe and its closing when reflecting on this. Yes, Emerging Spirit was closed, but part of that vision and passion about congregational development went over to EDGE (two Emerging Spirit staff joined that team). And it's the same with the passion and vision for connecting that WonderCafe represented - part of the reason it went over to the Communications Unit (along with me from Emerging Spirit) was to help infuse and resource the digital communications in that unit around social media, blogging, and using the web as a conversational space. The use of social media is now a basic tool for almost all GCO programs and initiatives. This sparking of a new thing in the church was always part of Emerging Spirit's call, and the best parts have been continued, just in different forms.

Aaron, this whole process has not been a good one. It would be okay for you to stop defending it. Seriously. 

From my limited knowledge it would seem to be far cheaper, simpler and more useful  to  create ONE portal (or whatever it would be called) on the net.  ONE direct link going to the conversations and activities of the UC.  ONE place where everything relevant to UC communication could be found.   WC, Emerging Spirit, EDGE, United Future etc. Church music could have a discussion/sharing area, so could Sunday SChool teachers.   It could even host a password protected area for approved/recognised clergy where they could openly share their thoughts and joys and frustrations away from the eyes of the general public and congregants.  

As it is now individuals have to be aware of UC initiatives in order to search for them on the web.  Please don't think they will try finding this stuff on the current webpage - I have met way too many people who have looked and not found - even when it is hidden in there somewhere.  If technology is going to be used by non technical church members it has to be simple to access and use. 

Fair enough, Aaron. 

George, do you or does anyone else know the terms of the Morrison bequest? did the UCC hold up the conditions of the bequest,. 9 ask because bequests or endowment specify that the funds be spent as quickly as the reciepiants want to, while others a meant to support ongoing work.

Brilliant and Logical - One place.  I think we tend to complicate 'church business'

Hi Aaron...

I very much appreciate your observations. Exactly what I am asking for. I am hoping to hear from other points of view, from persons closer to the decision process, well aware that I have no right to expect them.

This sets up the puzzle I am trying to resolve. Why did we walk away from WonderCafe and start from scratch with projects such as EDGE and United Future? Following the logic of the Emerging Spirit recommendations, could these not have been deployed from the WonderCafe base? Might the WonderCafe not have served well as an established and proven nexus for the expansion of communication of all sorts?

This nicely picks up what I am trying to say and seems consistent with the Emerging Spirit recommendation that WonderCafe would benefit by the addition of increased editorial content, that is, more input from the Communications division as well as others seeking the furtherance of a United Church ethos and practice in the community at large.

Aaron, do you know if this possibility was entertained by those shaping the trajectory we are now committed to? Was cost the determining influence? Put another way, did we neglect an opportunity to build on a viable United Church presence, representing a leading edge engagement of technological means, to save some measure of money?

I am not asking these questions expecting a reversal of the decision. I do hope to identify the learning points made possible by a critical inquiry into the process, trusting that transparency is a high value for us as we go forward along the opening way.

George

Hi Alex...

I do not know the specific directives of the Morrison bequest. Perhaps some other will come forward. This is the great advantage of many minds working together to achieve a common purpose. In this case, understanding.

I will see what I can find and get back to the question.

George

Hi once more. Here is a related link, with revjohn reflecting on the use we made of the bequest:  http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/observer-articlewhat-i-think?page=1

George

Interesting, i hadn't thought of this before....

I seem to remember when Emerging Spirit was funded that it came from a bequest that required it to be used for innovative ministry,and couldnt' be used for ongoing ministry.

I wonder if that sets up new initatives for failure.

They will be funded by a bequest that champions new thinking but there is nothing in the operational funding to support these long term.

interesting.

Hello....

The Comprehensive Review now on our collective table speaks of "Connectional Space".

This refers to proximate networks in real time. It seems to me that this process would be well served by the virtual networks made possible in places just like this.

What would be required is not complex. A simple matter of persons in all areas of interest and concern, making use of the Cafe to imagine, launch, promote, support and encourage the diverse networks of the proposed connectional space.

Simply... we are already in a connectional space which could be elaborated a great diversity of ways to promote communication through dialogue.

This place allows us to freely engage, for the most part with integrity and respect. The options proposed, United Future, Facebook, Twitter and such, are far too linear. This offers advantage on the managerial side but disadvantage on the democratic side.

If you see the error in my reasoning, bring it forward and together we can work towards a clear consensus position.

George

Hi...

This is something of an aside.

I recall some local, Winnipeg, coverage of the Morrison bequest. It seems that Dr. Morrison had a brief experience with the "All People's Mission" in Winnipeg's North End. Some will remember J. S. Woodsworth, who served as superintendent of the mission in the early years of the 20th century.

If memory serves me well, which it does not always do, the All People's Mission made a deep impression on Dr. Morrison. The narrative I recall suggested that this impression was the determining factor in Dr. Morrison's determination to bring benefit to the United Church.

If you are able to verify or negate this memory, I would be pleased to hear what you know.

George

I am delighted to see that my thoughts about online presence and communication are somewhat shared by others.

At the same time I am puzzled by the church's insistance on throwing babies out with bathwater.

I seem to recall a comment about using vBulletin for very little money. That makes me wonder why WC was such an expensive site and why it was set up in the way it was?I 

It may also be based on a misunderstanding. For example one could understand "ongoing ministry" as pre existing ministry. Which would allow the trust to provide operational funding for innovative ministry started with the trust.

Either way, just because an endowment limits funding to startup costs, does not mean that part of the start up costs could not include starting a way for the ministry to provide for it's own funds for "ongoing" . This was never done for Wondercafe. There was never ever even a link on the site to provide ongoing funding for WC. There were however appeals for other ministries.

I just found this. SInce it is originally from the National Post I am not sure of it's veracity. But iit claims there were no strings attached as to how the money was to be spent.

The bequest set up a Richard Morrison Fund

I am sure the terms of the bequests are in some legal database some where. While the UCC should have the Funds outline somewhere.

This came from an abandonned web site of an Ottawa Church on the National Captial Freenet.

DOCTOR'S ESTATE LEAVES $20-MILLION TO UNITED CHURCH 

Windfall comes as church faces lawsuits over its schools 

by Richard Foot

TORONTO: The United Church of Canada is celebrating a surprise, $20-million gift from the estate of a Canadian doctor who died in 1954.

 

The windfall - by far the largest bequest ever made to the church - comes with no strings attached. It removes any doubts about the financial viability of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, which was facing the threat of bankruptcy due to massive lawsuits filed by former students of church-run residential schools.

 

"It is quite astounding and it's something we're very thankful for," says Revered David Iverson, general secretary of the church's Canadian programs branch. "Sometimes you think it's providential - who knows how these things happen?"

 

The money comes from the estate of Richard Lindsay Morrison, an Ontario-born physician and devout Methodist who moved to the United States in about 1914. Mr. Iverson says little is known about Dr. Morrison, but it is believed he made his money owning orange gravers and other property in California.

 

When Dr. Morrison died in 1954, he left his money in trust to his American family. The trust was well managed over the years. And a clause in the will stated that upon the death of one of Dr. Morrison's grandson, all remaining funds should be transferred to the United Church of Canada born out of the merger between Methodist and Presbyterians in 1925.

 

The grandson named in the will died in California in November, which is when executors contacted astonished lawyers for the United church. Mr. Iverson heard late last year that the about $14-million (U.S.) was on its way to church headquarters in Toronto.

 

The largest previous bequest made to the church was a $1.4-million gift in 1985.

 

"It was hard to believe," says Mr. Iverson. "You were almost taken aback that that sum of money was coming to the United Church of Canada, and you immediately ask yourself, `What are we going to do with that?"

 

The gift dwarfs the church's existing national reserves, which stand at about $7-million. That money was expected to be exhausted over the next two years settling lawsuits filed by aboriginal people who say they were abused in residential schools. The United Church faces potential total liabilities from these lawsuits amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

 

Mr. Iverson says Dr. Morrison's bequest won't necessarily be spent on payouts to aboriginal people.

 

For now the church has earmarked about $2-million of the gift to support its immediate work within Canada. Another $500,000 has been put towards a "healing fund," which pays for social and economic programs in native communities.

 

The rest will remain in what is now called the Richard Morrison Fund . Church leaders will gather in May to talk discuss how to use that money, and to find a way of formally honouring their generous patron.

It seems that the Morrision Fund was folded in to http://unitedchurchfoundation.ca/

If it was folded into the United Church Foundation, or if it uses the same criteria, than it seems the chuirch failed to follow the criteria the fund requires when funding new project which is to include a plane to fund the project once the grant from them has started.

Pilot or start-up projects should include provision for evaluation and a plan for financial viability beyond the pilot or start-up stage.

Matching grants may be made in appropriate circumstances to stimulate response from other sources.

Multi-year funding will be considered in appropriate circumstances, subject to regular progress reports and financial reports, but we do not normally fund regular core programs. Successful applicants will be notified at the time of initial funding if they are receiving multi-year funding. 

Perhaps this is why is is hard to get answers from the GCO staff.  GCO  may have just ignored the fund's guideleine. Due to the use of the word "should". If the fund uses a loy of should than it would seem that the fund is misrepresnting itsleve to raise further funds.   But some further footwork will be needed to find out.  I am not expert on trusts. But if I have more factual information as oppose to what is on the web, I couls show it to someone in my family who is.

We need to find out for sure if the Morrison fund was folded into the United CHurch Foundation, or if it still exists as a seperate entity, and if so what were the terms of it's grants to fund Wondercafe.

Makes me want to hit my head, too.

Somebody sold them on using WC as a church finder and blog host, among other minor uses, like a book club. They needed a full CMS (Content Management System), and much of it had to be custom coded, especially the church finder. They chose Drupal, which is a pretty good open source CMS, and tacked a forum and blog section on it, both of which should have been pretty standard add-ons that needed minor customization (I hope, because similar functionality has been available for some time as Drupal plugins). The problem is, that church finder probably pushed the cost through the roof, and it's probably the least-used function at WC.

Basically, they went for a bunch of custom coded solutions, paid dearly for it, and all we ended up using was the forum which is technically inferior to vBulletin or any number of inexpensive or free forum solutions. Feel nauseous yet?

The UCCan also seems to have chosen their web consultants very poorly, based on how their proposal for a stripped-down WC was going to be Drupal-based again, costing some $10K, iirc. All because the employees are used to Drupal. That was criminally irresponsible of them. (Note how Aaron won't tell us who the company is?) vBulletin and XenForo and other solutions are not hard to learn. Plus, these consultants seem to hold the keys to the forum database, and charge through the nose for access, if I understand the conversation between Pinga and Aaron correctly. This company has us and the UCCan over a barrel. If the UCCan is going to continue to host the WC content on a static site, I'm scared how much this company is going to charge for that. I'm sure that WC2 or whatever we call it will be much more feature-rich, more usable, faster, and cost way less than whatever the UCCan has to pay to host a static archive of WC. Why they don't just pay a one-time ransom to this company to get the hell out of there and let us host the archive is beyond me.

Maybe the ransom to leave is too high, and it's not privacy concerns after all. After all, it's not the post content, but the email and login info that appears to be the problem. And we keep saying we don't need that, to no avail.

I think I need a drink.

Lol, reasonable summary, have a drink

Imagine an innocent young person comes into a lot of money. She than goes into a store and says I have all this money that I need to spend. 

Do you thing the store is going to show or tell them about cheap, or modestly priced goods, or about the most expensive goods they have. 

Another post written and deleted - except for something I'm sure I've shared before - .  My local UC doesn't even have a website - and a quick check around the area (eight towns) indicated that none of them do either!  

I think you just made me even more depressed about this situation than I did.

So does this third party actually own the database, or does the church own the database, but the third party owns the keys to the room with the database, and can charge whatever they want to allow the Church to use it? 

Can  an individual approach this third company and say now the the UCC will no longer pay for access, could I pay for access, by passing the UCC?

It happens all the time with non-profits and the governement.  I have seen millions spent on conmen sub contracters and or staff  who basically identify a source of income and than creates a project that will allow them to transfer that money iinto their own pockets.

Alex and others, as indicated we have not spoken to anyone. As we all know, words used in mail or chat in linear form are ripe for misinterpretation.  

I would not be willing to guess on stuff related to the provider.  I have my own gut feels about it, but I could be off base or misinterpreting.

Alex, I also have seen far too many people taken advantage of by consultants and contractors who get their hooks into a company.  Yet, I also have known honest and ehtical consultants who were asked to do things and they did them to the best of their ability not wanting to let someone down.  Who hasn't seen a website put together by a newbie volunteer that has ended up costing way too much in the longterm. 

So, we know that the situation is not good for us.  I can't be positive about anything else.

I would back you up on most contracters neing honest. However there are many who tak advanatge, and yes they do exists in business as well, (Enron, Worldcom etc) 

I am jsut still upset over a few things that happend to AIDS Service organisations and other proverty groups. It seems the more marginal a group the more likely you become targeted, While the UCC is not marginal in any ways, it it lie other churches are targets because good hearted people are more likely to trust others.  

Also businbesses or  organisations undergoing great change are also targeted.  

Robbers who break into cars or houses choose thoose that are the most vunerable. I would imagine the same prinipals applies elsewhere.

As for requesting or getting information about agreements that would seem to be Geofees expertise,  

I understand Alex and I think we have all been there.  Don't ask me about some of the scare stories that I have encountered.

Yet, I also have very honest ones.

I would not want anyone to extrapolate information based on what we have been told, coz that would be unfair.

Greetings,

There is very little that we know for sure. The WonderCafe is being abandoned. The public reason is insufficient funds.

Each of us has a measure of experience with the ways and means of the United Church, including chansen, who has been paying attention and has a sharp eye. It may not serve our interest well to allow that past experience to prejudice our language as we enter into dialogue with persons representing the institutional side. It certainly will not help further our hopes if we cast negative aspersions.

To go forward confidently, which is what I aspire to do, we will want to be diligent in maintaining a posture of respect. I will call attention to the example set by Nelson Mandela in South Africa. He learned to be generous with those who opposed him, even where that generosity was not much deserved.

I am on a steep learning curve with this. What I would like to discover is the substance of the conversations leading to the decision to abandon the WonderCafe project. This includes the number of persons involved and where those persons were situated in the institutional structures, but is not limited to these preliminary questions.

If those representing the institution have nothing to keep from view, there should  be no reason for failing to provide at least a sketch of the process leading to the decision. Knowing the institution quite well, I am assuming that the process was duly minuted and that those minutes are accessible to any concerned party. This is a simple matter of transparency.

The only person who may be able to solicit this information in our behalf is Aaron. This puts him in a delicate and difficult situation. All evidence I have suggests he is a person of integrity. He has demonstrated a sympathetic support as we negotiate this transitional phase. I trust that he will want to honour our concern and I understand that going past a certain point may compromise his standing at some level of accountability.

I would take much encouragement from the involvement of other persons party to the decision for abandoning the WonderCafe project. Part of me keeps hoping that one or more of these persons is now reviewing posts such as this.

The United Church is inviting its membership to fish on the other side of the boat. This means a break with status quo. That break should indicate a readiness to open communication. Not just that the constituency should respond to the institution (the side of the boat we have been fishing from), but that the institution should respond to the constituency (the other side).

We, here in the Cafe, have an opportunity to press for this response in a way that not many would be capable of. We seem to be what Keith Howard had in mind at the outset of the Emerging Spirit campaign. This is, in part, what he said: "What kind of rebellious, status quo challenging, cutting edge, gang of misfits might be called to that kind of radicalism?"

Perhaps this was empty rhetoric, spoken with a wink indicating that we ought not take it too seriously. Well, the wink is lost on me. I think the WonderCafe has been host to just such a "gang of misfits". Some will want us to sigh and pass quietly out of sight and mind. I hope we will not go so easily into obscurity.

All to say we will be well served by a patient, persistent press for full disclosure.

George

Hi GeoFee,

I look at things from another angle.  Money is not connected to the vision but it is most definitely connected to the mission.  Emerging Spirit could not run on hopes and dreams as most of the folk we built the Emerging Spirit campaign with have bills to pay themselves.

The portion of the Morrison Bequest was, to borrow a phrase, "seed money."  It was enough to get a program developed and see the program equipped for three years and the hope was that following that three year period Emerging Spirit would have proven itself worthy of Church support.

Most material I have read on creating mission suggests that a project like the Emerging Spirit should have only been funded for 18months and after that it sinks or swims on its own.  

The Emerging Spirit Campaign never became self-sustaining.  Not one single part of the campaign, including WonderCafe.ca ever became strong enough to stand on its own merit.  WonderCafe.ca came close in terms of popularity and usage.  Even so it has never been anything other than an expense.

Could it have become revenue neutral?  Possibly.  No attempt was made to test that that I am aware of.

Money was not the animating principle.  Money was the vehicle to providing the mission.  Once it is gone the mission either is able to support itself or it isn't.  Emerging Spirit wasn't.  WonderCafe.ca was given a reprieve but nobody dug around it and gave it any fertilizer, it just sat withering.

Now the axe is laid to the root and the only option that seems possible at this moment is to transplant because the owner will not have it sit dormant for one season more (and who can blame the owner if there is no gardener taking responsibility for it).

Respectfully it is a stewardship issue.  At least in part.  All the Churches all over the country that either cannot contribute to M&S or will not support M&S for whatever reason force the issue.

The United Church of Canada believes in a trickle up theory of economics.  Congregations support the higher courts of the Church.  As Congregations amalgamate or disappear the expenses of being Church increase.

We aren't cutting fat, we haven't had any fat to cut for years.  We are cutting sliver after sliver off of the roast.  A few years back it was rural ministry being cut, this time around WonderCafe.ca is being trimmed off.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks folks. I can clarify a couple of things I think: 

WonderCafe was funded from the Morrison Bequest as part of the Emerging Spirit program. When that program ended in 2010, WonderCafe was moved to the Communications Unit and has been funded by the Mission and Service Fund since then. WonderCafe currently doesn't have anything to do with the Morrison Bequest and hasn't for almost 4 years. 

The General Council Office controls WonderCafe and its database and all its file are on servers controlled by the GCO. Most of the work to maintain the site is done by our web team. Occasionally there are issues we don't have time to do or can't do, and we have a pool of service providers we go to for help. They don't control WonderCafe or access to its files. We hire them for specific tasks, that's it.

GeoFee: It's pretty much just as we reported here. The version of Drupal that WonderCafe runs on will no longer be supported starting sometime in 2014. This means no more security updates, bug fixes, etc., which puts the site and user information at risk. We asked our service providers for estimates to upgrade WonderCafe to the new version of Drupal, and the estimates came in higher than we could afford. Because of the availability of other options (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Dan Benson, our web manager Bill Gillard and I agreed that it was time to move on from WonderCafe. It wasn't a decision anybody wanted to make and we wished there were other options. Dan talked to General Secretary Nora Sanders about it, she reported the decision to the last General Council Executive meeting, who apparently didn't disagree.

If people have more questions please let me know and I'll do my best to answer them.

Can you speak with Pinga chansen and mendalla by phone along with other staff that I names earlier

Yes, I'm happy to have a phone anytime I can. (Pinga has my cell number.) But adding other staff makes it necessary to find a meeting time, which can be a challenge. I've already told Pinga about the details.

So Aaron, 3 people essentially made this decision? 

Wow. I don't know what to say. 

Just had to lift this up once again. Am I the only one being driven crazy by this? 

Hi John...

When the money was there it lived, when the money was gone it died. Am I missing something?

George

Thanks Aaron...!

George

Hi GeoFee,

I suspect it is a language thing.

Money was not the principle animator.  At best money was a facilitator.

Because there was a cost component to every aspect of the Emerging Spirit Campaign it could not contine without a revenue stream.  Without that income we muzzle the ox.  Muzzle it too long and it is a dead ox.

As long as the money existed to facilitate the ministry the ministry continued.  As soon as there was no more money to facilitate the ministry the ministry ended.

Should we have found a way to allow the ministry to continue.  Yes, I think we should have.  Sadly, on the day the vote was taken this commissioner represented the minority opinion of all commissioners.

I don't know which side discerned the Spirit most accurately.  Just that there will continue to be disagreement on that matter.

Grace and peace to you.

John

George

[/quote]

Hi John....
.
I suspect you are right speaking of "a language thing".
.
In this, as in much of my experience with the institution and those who serve it, I hear loud and clear "No money = no mission". This, for me, even if for no other, contradicts Jesus; rendering his teaching ironic.
.
George
.