That's bad. I had more mercy on you than you do on yourself, lol.

Please note that now the new admins and the original Ainslie are off topic on this post

Sigh

(but pretty hilarious exchange - chansen & aaron!)  

lol @ Admins - for now

It's like herding cats, I tell ya.  herding cats.

Aaaaaaaaaack!

*cough*

Hairball.

I think the job descriptions are clear. Good work folks

except chansen-I hope you get unbanned from new site soon!

Looking at the on-topic comments (and carefully avoiding the hairball lying on the floor; where is the WonderCustodian when you need him?), I don't see any major concerns or controversy here. I will put up a Survey Monkey poll (probably this evening) so we can have a vote to make it all official and then move on to discussing the Council structure in which these roles will operate.

Mendalla

Great idea....can we add a wondercustodian....some one who goes around and cleans up the crap on the floor?  there may be value in that role

Could be an interesting new job title for the mods.

*ducks*

I'm sure there's an app for cleaning up crap...

Is it available for Windows Phone?

Voting is now open to approve these role descriptions. Please see this thread:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-lets-vote-again-we-d...

Wondercafe2 Admin Team: Mendalla, chansen, Pinga

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

And by himself no less.

I can't decide if I am more impressed than amused.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Now, here's an interesting curve ball, which you can tell me you've thought of and rejected.

Would there be any value to having our new forums under the wing of a United Church congregation? We're having all sorts of "new ministry"/transformational conversations in my congregation, and just wondered if there'd be any value in some sort of link?

It was discussed months ago when we were trying to figure where to go when the church closes Wondercafe. Not sure there was a specific thread on it, just came up on various discussions of the closure. I think the problem was figuring out how such an arrangement fits under the current governance structure of the church in time (since we have a June deadline) and finding a congregation or presbytery willing to take it on. The new governance structure being discussed seems like it would have more flexibility to handle this idea but who knows where that discussion will end up.

Mendalla

I think it would work well. At least in the current way the UCC is organised, the denomination is really the only place in the UCC that is able to deal with people outside of the church's structure.

Why would we link to a church? What's the value in that?

Especially when the UCW would want the key. lol

Here's the thing - would being run by a congregation help or hinder us? With the current plan for WC2, we will be a self-governing community and don't need to worry about someone from outside trying to figure out, judge, and control what we are doing. Our Council will be chosen entirely from the membership of WC. In a sense, we will be a congregation, just one that is not part of any denomination. The Council structure will even be not unlike that of some churches.

If we were affiliated with a congregation, would we even have our own Council or would we become just a project of theirs, subject to the whims and fortunes of that congregation rather than of GCO. I see a lot of merit in an independent WC and can see some liabilities in the model of being affiliated with a congregation. Now, if we were to BE a congregation, so that the independence is maintained albeit within the structures of the UCCan, then you might have my interest.

Mendalla

Man, what you guys will try to get me to join a church. No way do any of you get to bring so much as a thimbleful of water anywhere near me.

So, what is funny, is that I put this forward as I think we are a congregation in many ways; however, the overhead of the item is a killer as the polity of the church just would not support it.

at most, it coudl be a mission, but, given how badly most churches are running these days the last thing I would want to be is beholden to a united church of canada congregation....subject to the whims of the board.

Thimbleful? No no. If any water is brought in it has got to be enough for a full immersion.

I hate to be a pest but I think good people skills should be part of the job description for mods because it involves dealing with people directly. It's the most social and public of all the jobs. Whereas the rest is technical and administrative. If someone really doesn't like
dealing with people and negotiating the hassles that are bound to come up, patiently, and that's a weak spot for them, the job won't be any fun for them or the posters. I should have put this up a few days ago obviously. I'm a little late. I don't want to vote 'no' because everything else looks good- man, this one is kind of like an omnibus bill. ;)

(puttng on my marketing hat)

Well for start if we hosted forums for churches (and other groups) it could be used to drive traffic to the rest of WC2.

THe central offices of the UCC (GCO) has real problems right now. and does not do a good job of hosting discussions online.   Much as some churches contract out janitorail services, WC2 could host disscussion forums,for both GCO, courts, and the local church..

It certainly would be easier for them than running their own site. Facebook is impossible to have complex disscussions. IN cities like Ottawa many churches are no longer neighbourhood based, and  if they have a turn key solutions to host various discussion amonst their members that works better than email., facebook and twitter they could do so on WC2

Plus for various committes of Presberty, and groups like Affirm their budgets are shrinking to the point they may wish to meet online at times.

Alex, 

I think what chansen meant is link via organizational structure.

There is no question there are advantages to linking, and in fact, you will see a proposal of linkage in the upcoming council discussions.

Being a congregation, though, would require specific polity é oversight, which I was convinced would be excessive.

About two months ago, I was asked to write a short commentary for the Observer on this specific topic as I had led a discussion on it both on this site and on the united church facebook group. 

I am not sure what you envision, but it depends on the people in the local churches deciding that it is worth putting effort into something that may or may not have results. Howevr if Bettethered church wants to hold online discussions, than WC2 may be a place where it is easier and bettr than email or facebook.

Absolutely, Alex.  there is no question that the congregations, presbyteries, conferences or GC could  use the wondercafe2 site to their advantage, and I strongly believe in that link.

What I had proposed was that we form a congregation or a pastoral charge.  The challenge is we would then have to follow all the policy etc of a church including presbytery, conference requirements.  It is a cool concept, and I think doable, but, not without a forward thinking presbytery, conference, etc.  

What I could have seen happening was linking into a conference of virtual congregations, which do not require a physical location to be a congregation.  

Anyhow, yes, absolutely lots to offer.  Linking should occur.  That does not imply oversight by a congregation or being a mission of any congregation.

I believe the UCCan would have been wise to explore this possiblity and include a central place to link to webcasts of UCCan church services.  At this point I see no value in an additional layer of governace/structure/oversight.

Inukshuk, I agree.  Yet wise and visionary do not seem to equate with current organizational structure / leadership in many organizations, especially those in similair state of affairs to the United church of Canada.  When you are busy moving around the deck chairs on a sinking ship it is hard to see there is an island just off shore.

Yes - as someone else (?) here has already said - time to stop rearranging the deck chairs - throw them overboard - they are no longer needed.

Since you have phrased things in the way in which you have, Pinga, I feel it's fair to ask the question, why link WC2 to "a sinking ship"? I mean, if anything, would it not be better to link it to something still safely afloat and going full steam ahead.

If you believe the ship is worthy saving, than you would rather link to it than to a ship that is no worthy.

Yes, I suppose. Although I would say it's best to link, if to anything, to a worthy ship that is still faring well. Is it your thought that the only worthy ship is the UCCanada? That's a view I don't have of my own Fellowship. I believe we are afloat, but I see other ships all around, some of whom are prospering more than we are. Of course, in the ultimate analysis, we are all a part of one great and mighty Fleet.

No, in an omnibus bill we would have put the name, mission, roles, Council, and code of conduct all on one simple yes/no ballot and told anyone who complained that they should (in politer language) just hold their nose and vote for it. Hey, I'm learning a few things from watching Mr. Harper in action.

We did not see much point to voting on each role individually so we decided to do it as a slate for simplicity.

Mendalla

Go to my blog and read the piece on the UU Church of the Larger Fellowship. We've been doing virtual church since before there was an Internet and the UCCan could easily use that as a model.

Mendalla

I agree, Mendalla.  It was an opportunity, but the spirit was not present for it.

Results of the vote posted here:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-ontario-arent-only-o...

Mendalla