What would help the Temple Be A Better Place? Suggestions please...

steamboat28 wrote: What can we do to get the focus there? Whose backsides do we need to light fires under?

See, that puts me under a particular microscope. I commented on what I saw as an issue. But if I go around naming people then it will quickly get turned around as I am the one causing trouble. Which will hinder my ability to do my job.

What I will tell you is do exactly what you are doing. Stand up for yourself. Make your voices heard. Pay attention to what’s going on and then talk about the issues you see.

It may take time, but I believe everything will turn out for the best in the end. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t still be here working for it! LOL :laugh:

And there will be someone that says, then why did you say anything!?!?

Because we all know that there are issues. We’re talking about them now. And if there is an issue that I see that isn’t enough of an issue for others to see, then maybe it just isn’t really an issue.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

TheDude wrote:
There are broken links. A lot of them. Please, do something with them -- anything. At least change the broken links in DQS lessons and the FAQ.

The assistant Librarian was looking into adding more original content to the library.

And we are talking about making a mediation sub-forum. Of course adding it as a section of the library is not out of the question.

I gave our assistant librarian the ability to fix the broken links. And he was doing an excellent job. But someone decided that they needed to take that away from him. So we’ll have to wait till the links get fixed by some other means I guess.

I was doing it for a while. But there is just so much to do to keep everything running that I just can’t do it all by myself. Hence why I gave our assistant librarian the ability to fix them.

Sounds like a major decision in removing editing abilities connected to my doing MY JOB was made without consent of the council, why is this permissible?


Don't all Council members answer all at once now... :whistle:

Is anybody keeping track of all of these suggestions? It sounds to me like this is a time for Knights (myself included) to prioritize these and provide some specific and actionable items to Council. I'll start making a list...

I regard this thread rather with incomprehension. There are multiple topics in this thread that I tried to highlight as a knight and either got rebuffed by Council or eventually ignored. Once I got the knights to have a vote, only to have a Council member (my own training master) question me on whether I was going to 'do it again'.

There is a great irony in the member of the Council who opens this thread being the one who barely posts.

I would like to hope that this time around the Council actually listens to what is being said, rather than brushing things off.

It is one thing to open a thread about it, it is another thing entirely to actually enact change.

I've got pretty limited experience here, but for what it's worth, here's what might improve my experience

I enjoy having the journals be open, and having folk in positions to respond do so, and getting the "thank yous" that let me know I'm being heard. And I think I might feel even less alone in my process if there were one or two or even three people who I knew were specifically and officially there for me to ask questions of and to let me know how I'm doing.
I've been contacted by loads of people who are great friends and unofficial mentors, but I'd be more comfortable bringing some things to more official mentor types, and knowing that for sure someone is relatively up to date on my process and would let me know if I need to make changes.

tzb wrote:

Avalonslight wrote: Wes mets his term end, steps down, one day later steps back up because... Who else is suitable to take on his role?

So long as that's the case, there's not a problem with Wes staying in the role. This is more about post holders who aren't showing up anymore, or aren't obviously effective in their roles. Right now the only mechanism for replacing them with effective people is waiting for them to decide to step down. That seems... silly. And even then, they have been replaced by similarly inactive members... so the problem is compounded.

The other thing is we can only guess who they are, because we don't have any visibility on what individual Councillors do (or don't do). Or even what they're supposed to be doing. People most of us don't know get to decide how this place works, if they show up, because once upon a time it was decided they should. That seems really crap to a lot of us... this place is a big part of our beliefs, it matters to us, we show up. And then a stranger declares themselves in charge and starts throwing their weight around... that's an unpleasant experience.

I have no doubt some councillors do a lot of work. I also know for a fact several don't. How about sharing that work between multiple active councillors? How about delegating some of that work to non-Council members so that Councillors remain part of the community? How is it people can claim to represent the best interests of this community when they're not engaged in it?

Like I said... you can't be a leader if you're a stranger.

Ah, tzb sort of beat me to my own counterpoint before I could get to it. Yes, this is exactly where I was about to go with my follow up. Obviously, in the situation of 'term limits' if someone's term were to be up, but no suitable replacement was available, then that person would remain in office. I have no doubt that this collective Temple is more than capable of exercising that level of common sense. I was merely pointing out the trouble with hard term limits.

That said, the other problem is also there too, that a person can obtain an office and indefinitely remain there. In some cases this is fine; we don't really need to change the way that applications are processed, for example, unless a better way comes along that makes it easier for the person processing said applications. There is little need to change the people in charge of this unless, as I believe someone mentioned somewhere, it becomes obvious that the person in such a position is abusing their power in some other fashion (and no, I'm not saying you do Wes!!)

Other positions, however, do benefit from change. Be it the Pastor or the Degree Scheme administrator, getting a new pair of eyes in there allows for fresh ideas. Fresh ideas are what keep the entire process from stagnating. Such change tends to only benefit those around it, so long as it doesn't occur to frequently.

Either way, what might possibly be a good idea to consider is the general activity of those involved in some sort of office position. And I don't necessarily mean posting on the forum. Y'all are busy. I get that. I've never (well almost never) been one to advocate for the idea that once you obtain a certain rank, you ought to be required to post a specific number of times every so often. What I do feel, though, is that if you explicitly hold an office (especially the councilors themselves) that some consistent level of presence making ought to be done. Whether it's to sit in chat for a while every now and then, or post where you can. Really, sitting in chat... Because then you're known to be online, and we know we can reach you easily. And no, *not* all the time. Just often enough that we don't have someone who joined 6 months ago going "wtf is this person?!" to an individual holding an office who's literally not been seen by anyone (outside of highly restricted forums) for any length of time. And if you cannot, or are not willing to, do at least that, then the position needs to be removed and passed on to another individual.

I won't carry on because I think all my other points have been made by others at this point, considering it's taken me a few hours to get this typed out.

Another quick thought, and feel free to tell me to sit down and shut up.if this is already being done, but I feel like I've heard somewhere that part of the reason it takes so long to get any sort of changes or decisions implemented is because of the time in between council members responding and so on or so forth.

As such, would it even be plausible for the council to have mutually agreed upon meeting times in Skype or Google Hangouts? Say once or twice a month, all of you log in and do an active chat session so that things aren't restricted purely to forum posts? Just a thought I randomly had...

(Holy crap, sorry! Fixed the blaring typo there!!)

"Protocol for removal of Officers other than by Council vote"

Has been mentioned. And removing an Officer is one thing; but, it leaves a void that will have to be filled until a replacement can be selected. Has anyone given thought to how we might do that?

In Council, we have been looking at the use of applications and a selection process. Normally we reserve Officer Position for those that have achieved the rank of Knight or higher. Is a process like that something that would be wanted by the membership?

Wescli Wardest wrote: "Protocol for removal of Officers other than by Council vote"

Has been mentioned. And removing an Officer is one thing; but, it leaves a void that will have to be filled until a replacement can be selected. Has anyone given thought to how we might do that?

In Council, we have been looking at the use of applications and a selection process. Normally we reserve Officer Position for those that have achieved the rank of Knight or higher. Is a process like that something that would be wanted by the membership?

This isn't a comment on any council members, but in general practice, is it better for a position to be open for a suitable person to eventually fill, or for it to be filled by someone unsuitable for that specific position (whether that means available time to commit or individual ability) to fill it? Is the idea of an open position such a bad thing?

Totally agree.

Benchwarmers sap morale, raise expectations yet don't contribute more than an empty seat. At least an empty seat can be filled, when the right person comes along.

Given the number of active members on the site, I don't see a situation where we couldn't recruit someone valuable pretty much immediately anyway.