Are We a Group?

I've received a good bit of follow-up from the CIT event in Houston referring to what a great group we have.  Should I argue back?  We're not a group!  But wait, are we?  Multiple people, like minded, trying to share ideas, dealing with common challenges.  Hmmm...that does sound like a group, doesn't it?

Had breakfast this morning with Jeffrey Thompson and Rich Kowalske, and we discussed the same topic.  They each said something along the lines of "of course we're a group!"  OK...this is sounding more and more like there is something to this.

So, if we are a group, then what group are we?  Are we a national group?  A local group?  A regional group?  Maybe even an international group?  I expect that we're all the above, whatever that might mean...

Should whatever group we are have a name?  Do we want to be particular about who can be part of the group?  I would really like to hear your thoughts.

Here are my quick thoughts (feel free to disagree!  [did I need to say that?]):

• The name should mention both Church and IT.  My favorite thought (of the moment) is Church IT Association, or CITA.  (I especially like CITA as it also stands for "Christ Is The Answer")  If the "National" organization were CITA, then maybe we also have a local Atlanta Area group AACITA?  I don't like that as much.  Atlanta Chapter of CITA?  Maybe...
• Even though we are probably Church-centric, it makes sense to allow non-church people to have some level of involvement.  Associate membership?
• Local groups would be good.  [I'm suddenly motivated to connect with other nearby churches]
• Is it time to pull together ITdiscuss, the Church IT Roundtable, the various Wikis being put together by [at least] Jason Kergosien, Jeffrey Thompson, Jim Walton; and what would that all-together thing look like?

So..share your ideas, please!  Do you want to be part of a named group?

I should have mentioned that Jason Powell already had a similar topic on his blog.

Comments

[Andrew Mitry]

I'd definitely be interested in participating in such a group. CITA sounds good to me, citausa.org is available for registration.

[Jason Powell]

FYI: There are a number of comments related to this topic over at http://jpowell.blogs.com/jason_powell_church_it/2007/01/national_church.html

[Brian Slezak]

I remember people referring to "this group." I'd say it is not formalized, but my guess is everyone feels like this is a group. Yes. I'll put a vote for CITA.

I think local, or at least distributed, groups is inevitable unless we want to change the feel or function of the current round tables to support one large group.

It is time to pull together others? It seems to me the time is always now and later never comes. After thinking more about the NACBA it seems like a very viable option, but it depends on why this group exists, and what value we we are trying to sustain.

[Jason Lee]

Count me in.

I am excited about what such a group could do to help all of us... A community of us doing IT in the Church would be a great resource for us all...

[Pam Matthews]

I'll vote for CITA as well.

I would also like to be part of a regional group - to benefit from the proximity of the Atlanta folks - it would definitely be worth a 2 hour drive for me to participate in a regional event along with the national ones.

[Jim Walton]

I think a group is a great idea, but I do have one nagging thought and it may not be a valid one but I'll throw it out there.

NACBA is a great association for church administrators, although I don't know much about how it operates. I suspect there's quite a bit of administration involved. (imagine that, an administrative group having administration! :) ) I have no problem with that, at all. But I wonder how much administration CITA (I like that name) will begin to require.

It sounds like those that were just at the roundtable really connected and could well be the foundation of 'this group' and I'm looking forward to the fall roundtable because I will actually be able to be there.

I have watched the church IT world grow and evolve and form over the past couple of years and I have alot of close connections that I have made and many others do, as well.

I have 2 observations: #1) it appears that this association is taking shape naturally and evolving into something, on a 'national' or 'international' level, as well as local, which is a great thing. I see more things coming in the near future to further enhance this group's cohesiveness. #2) If we intend to 'formalize' this association, how will that be brought together? I ask this because I know everyone is busy, too busy, with church related IT stuff and life in general, so who is able to commit to take on a project like this?

Maybe it's not a single person but the responsibility rotates, such as is the case with each roundtable. or maybe CITA is some kind of organic group that evolves over time that doesn't require any formality. It probably does, I just don't want to lose what's already got some good momentum and I just want to be aware and not force a structure on something that may be it's strongest in it's current, evolving state.

I agree with what you are saying, Tony and I'm excited about seeing CITA turn into something.

[Mike Mayfield]

Tony,

Count me in for the CITA! I think a national group is inevitable with the roundtable participants most likely being the 'founding' members. I think from this national group, it would be very easy to 'birth' local or regional groups. I agree with Jim's previous post that some real coordination will more than likely be needed as this CITA group takes shape. What will that coordination look like? Who knows? but I am willing to help out in any way I can. With my connection to the NACBA through my boss who is soon to the the President of the Board for that organization, I would be happy to get her advice as needed as the organization is formed.

[Tony Dye]

Thanks for all the great comments! Sounds like we're all interested in doing "something," and a less formal organization, or "organic," as Jim Walton mentioned, sounds great. How do we do it? I don't know. But...I have a follow-up post in the works with some possible ideas. Keep those comments coming in.

[Jeremy Hoff]

There are half dozen churches around me that have not attended the IT Roundtable, but we get together quarterly for fellowship, lunch, and to share wisdom and war stories. That sounds like a regional group to me.
Formalized or not -- I'm in this for the long haul. By my vote would be to hold off formalizing as long as practical. (Perhaps we are already beyond that...)

[Rich Kowalske]

I definitely like the name CITA. Where is the sign up form? :) I think that there are some advantages to becoming an organized group for sure. What I would really like to see happen is local "chapters" of the organization meet regularly (every four to six weeks) in a "Round Table" like format. We then could hold a yearly conference where people could choose to attend. I think the yearly conference would still be a round table format, but would allow a multitude of people to attend. Using technology to our benefit, those who are not able to be "at the table" should be able to post questions to the table...there are obviously many ways this could work.
What I would really like to see, is a way for the organization to be able to serve the members. While many of us have big churches and big budgets, the vast majority of churches do not have IT staff. They are served by volunteers or third party vendors. I would like to see us doing all we can to advance the Kingdom through the smaller church as well.

[KevMc]

I actually belong to the NACBA and went through their certification process. A question that will eventually come up is whether you are trying to establish standards and provide credentials to members. That would create a lot of administrative overhead. I think the IT industry has enough of that already. A focus on member networking is definitely the direction to go along with lesser focuses on best practices, shared projects, pitfalls, Services & Products to avoid, integrating IT with Ministry, and the like.

[David Szpunar]

I'm going to echo Rich and say, "Where's the form?" Well, perhaps I shouldn't ask that yet, because I want to be in on the ground floor creating the form :-)

CITA sounds okay to me, mainly because I love acronyms and I've already tried (not publicly) to come up with a good name that has a good acronym, and didn't succeed with anything better!

[Tony Dye]

Eric Busby (www.ericbusby.com) posted a follow-up to a similar discussion taking place on Jim Walton's blog. http://churchtechmatters.com/2007/04/24/church-it-association-where-do-we-go-from-here/#comment-14774

Here's the text of that comment:
Have you considered asking ICTA if you could have a specialized forum within the association? ( http://www.icta.net ) Pete Holtzman petereg [at] icta.net is the head of it. It is a significant group already established. Just a thought. Eric