Tech Forum

nutterb wrote: I would almost beg not to have the IT specialist or website administrator listed as an assistant ward clerk. My reasoning is that assistant clerks are supposed to be priesthood holders, but there are tasks that fall under the clerk's direction that may at times be better handled by a sister in the ward (for example, the historian may work with the clerk to prepare the historian, but since this is not an assistant clerk, may be a woman).

I would just rather not to get boxed into a gender requirement that didn't need to exist if we could avoid it.

I totally agree, and can foresee other situations where an "admin" might not need to be called into a bishopric as a clerk. In LUWS, you can specify any admin as the ward see's fit, but the new beta.lds.org tools with admin functions seem tied to specific leadership callings, and I'm not sure if they can be "re-assigned." I brought up the question already...what if your clerks aren't prepared to take on these tasks?

Anyone know?

kisaac wrote:I totally agree, and can foresee other situations where an "admin" might not need to be called into a bishopric as a clerk. In LUWS, you can specify any admin as the ward see's fit, but the new beta.lds.org tools with admin functions seem tied to specific leadership callings, and I'm not sure if they can be "re-assigned." I brought up the question already...what if your clerks aren't prepared to take on these tasks?

Anyone know?

According to the source code the website administrator position has admin rights for both the Directory and the Calendar. So the ward (or stake) can have a non-clerk admin for those two applications.

I don't have any particular information but I expect the Leadership/Clerk application will only be accessible to leadership and clerks. That application is specifically to help those positions do their jobs. Based on the potentially sensitive information that will be available (and possibly editable) it makes sense to restrict it to those with an appropriate leadership or clerk calling.

eblood66 wrote:According to the source code the website administrator position has admin rights for both the Directory and the Calendar. So the ward (or stake) can have a non-clerk admin for those two applications.

I don't have any particular information but I expect the Leadership/Clerk application will only be accessible to leadership and clerks. That application is specifically to help those positions do their jobs. Based on the potentially sensitive information that will be available (and possibly editable) it makes sense to restrict it to those with an appropriate leadership or clerk calling.

And I completely agree that website administrators shouldn't have access to the leadership/clerk application. My point is that it can be nice to have someone else updating the ward calendar(s), maintaining news and information, and overseeing the message on the homepage of LUWS. And there may be times when a woman might be the best person to fill that role. Same thing with an IT specialist. Unless there is a clear directive that the calling requires a priesthood holder, I would prefer to give the calling a name that doesn't imply a priesthood holder.

nutterb wrote:My point is that it can be nice to have someone else updating the ward calendar(s), maintaining news and information, and overseeing the message on the homepage of LUWS. And there may be times when a woman might be the best person to fill that role. Same thing with an IT specialist. Unless there is a clear directive that the calling requires a priesthood holder, I would prefer to give the calling a name that doesn't imply a priesthood holder.

Doesn't Website Administrator fit that criteria?

Note that with the new calendar you can have lots of calendar editors updating calendars using whoever the ward wants. The new news and information site hasn't even been started yet but I would assume it will follow a similar pattern with the Website Administrator as one of the pre-defined admins and then with other individual editors for different categories of news.

The only talk about an IT specialist has been on this forum. There is nothing in the applications themselves that indicates such a position will be created. But if the ward needs somebody who becomes and expert on the applications and can help others, either a clerk or the Website Administrator seems like a reasonable choice. Again, the Website Administrator calling doesn't imply priesthood and could be filled by any responsible, technically inclined adult or even possibly youth.

eblood66 wrote:Doesn't Website Administrator fit that criteria?

Note that with the new calendar you can have lots of calendar editors updating calendars using whoever the ward wants. The new news and information site hasn't even been started yet but I would assume it will follow a similar pattern with the Website Administrator as one of the pre-defined admins and then with other individual editors for different categories of news.

The only talk about an IT specialist has been on this forum. There is nothing in the applications themselves that indicates such a position will be created. But if the ward needs somebody who becomes and expert on the applications and can help others, either a clerk or the Website Administrator seems like a reasonable choice. Again, the Website Administrator calling doesn't imply priesthood and could be filled by any responsible, technically inclined adult or even possibly youth.

Website Administrator currently does fit into the mold I'm advocating. And I expect it will stay that way. I'm speaking more in hypotheticals in relation to this statement:

kisaac wrote:Perhaps this suggests a new standard calling: Assistant Ward Clerk: IT specialist

I just saw the suggestion of a new standard calling of 'Assistant Ward Clerk...' and that sent up a red flag for me. I'm guess I'm skeptical of having lots of assistant ward clerk positions. I'd rather have specialists.

I believe that they are also using the Website Administrator position in MLS to allow admin access in the directory and calendar.

ryan jones wrote:I believe that they are also using the Website Administrator position in MLS to allow admin access in the directory and calendar.

could you or someone clarify...

Are you talking about the LUWS (local unit website administrator) specified in MLS that has admin access in the beta directory and calendar? What about others with admin rights specified in LUWS but not in MLS? I can't check as I am LUWS admin and Ward Clerk, and would have to release myself.

I'd would like the LUWS admin to have admin rights over the beta calendar and directory, as it will eventually become/replace LUWS.

kisaac wrote:could you or someone clarify...

Are you talking about the LUWS (local unit website administrator) specified in MLS that has admin access in the beta directory and calendar? What about others with admin rights specified in LUWS but not in MLS? I can't check as I am LUWS admin and Ward Clerk, and would have to release myself.

The LUWS admin position will eventually become irrelevant. It can only be specified in LUWS, and only affects LUWS.

What Ryan was talking about is the Website Administrator position, which is a standard calling specified in MLS, is transmitted to CDOL, and affects what the person with that calling can do in the beta directory and calendar.

kisaac wrote:I'd would like the LUWS admin to have admin rights over the beta calendar and directory, as it will eventually become/replace LUWS.

It's simple enough for the ward clerk (or some other authorized MLS user) to specify in MLS that the person who is the LUWS administrator also has the standard MLS calling Website Administrator. Once that is done (assuming the bishop approves this), you get your wish. I don't see any reason to create a connection between the obsolescent LUWS and MLS/CDOL just for this tiny purpose, when the calling can already be entered in MLS in about a minute.

Sure, it's easy to enter a website administrator in MLS.
It's much easier for an admin to appoint another admin
from the web, but I think that the church wants to make
sure that only people with higher-level callings can affect
the ward website. We lose flexibility, but the members
are assured that their information is handled only by
those in authority (that the members had sustained).

More safeguards built into church programs will make it harder
to be as cavalier in our actions, but will keep the legal department
(and probably many members) happy.

- Atticus

atticusewig wrote:I think that the necessity of entering a person as the
ward website Admin in MLS to give them admin rights
has more to do with Church HQ's tightening down on
how wards "should" be run.

As a member of the dev team for Directory and Calendar, I'll just say (without speculation) that the reason we use CDOL (and subsequently MLS, as that is used by wards/branches to populate CDOL) as our source for admin positions is because that is the best technical solution. Any other solution would require onerous rework of existing systems that are going away in the near future. If it is at all because that is how wards "should" be run, it is also because that is the best technical solution.

CDOL is the authoritative source for ward callings and assignments, so why do extra work to incorporate other sources that are not authoritative?

As for the need to link the new Calendar/Directory admin position to the old LUWS position, why use as our data source the system that is being replaced by the data consumer?