Talk:Stake technology specialist

Other Responsibilities

Contributor Retiredtech has made changes that to me appear to be personal opinion and only confuses the issue for those looking for definitive guidance Churchwide. The change is to line 25 where a comment is added about having two stake technology specialists. This change was also entered as a minor change. By Tech Wiki guidelines this is not a minor change and the change should have been noted in this discussion area before making the controversial change. I think the change submitted should be removed since there is no supporting documentation and it is just opinion.Jdlessley 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and so I have undone that recent change. Handbook 1, section 13.3.3, only uses the singular in referring to the stake technology specialist. I'd be happy to restore the change if supporting documentation can show that this is an approved option, but I don't think such documentation exists. A stake technology specialist is welcome to obtain help from others skilled in particular technologies, but the responsibility is still his. -- Aebrown 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A change was recently made to MLS to support multiple STS's in a single stake, and a worldwide survey of stake leadership indicated that a large percentage of stakes now have multiple STS's. There is some informal documentation stating what Retiredtech said, but I don't know if there have been any public statements to this effect yet. While there is nothing technically wrong with the suggestion to have multiple STS's in a stake, I suppose it is your right to remove the suggestion. But, it is a good suggestion that many stakes are already following.- Ken 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To place the statement as worded by contributor Retiretech in the wiki without an official statement or document is a bit presumptive or at least preemptive and it adds confusion. I would be more soft in the wording until there is something official. In fact, Ken's first sentence would be more appropriate. In other words there could be a statement that indicates a change trend. As I read Retiredtech's statement it looked like direction from CHQ. The statement creates more confusion with regard to what part of the the responsibilities of an STS are then handled by each STS. At first it looks clear. But when the Handbook and other documents are considered in relation to Retiredtech's statement I was wondering who really has the responsibilities of the STS. While a stake president can have two or more STSs to handle the growing work load, is it not up to him who handles what work? Would there be an STS and assistant STSs? It is not clear.Jdlessley 03:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If this page was supposed to be deleted at the end of 2012, why is it still here? Can't it just refer to the official guidance at this point? What is preventing this from happening? Jondrice (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (MST)