1. Opening

Geoff stated that he had convened an extraordinary meeting of the Committee following a development on the Neocities website platform which required a decision regarding the Chapel’s authority to approve external websites.

The meeting was called at short notice, as the individual concerned was awaiting a response.

2. Background

Geoff reported that the Chapel’s Neocities account had recently followed a website operating under the name irrelevantreviews.

The website’s proprietor had subsequently published a message expressing surprise at being followed by a chapel and asking whether this entitled them to describe their website as officially approved by the Chapel of St Letus Salata.

Geoff confirmed that no formal application for approval had been submitted. However, the question had been raised publicly, and he considered that a failure to respond might create uncertainty regarding the Chapel’s position.

The Committee agreed that the matter should be considered.

3. Authority to Approve External Websites

The Committee discussed whether the Chapel possessed the authority to approve websites over which it had no operational responsibility.

It was observed that no existing Chapel regulation expressly prohibited such approvals.

Geoff further noted that the Chapel was not proposing to assume responsibility for the website, merely to approve of it by way of gentle nod.

Stephen asked whether the Committee had inspected the website. Geoff confirmed that he had visited it, although no formal inspection report had been prepared.

The Committee agreed that a formal inspection would introduce an unnecessary delay.

It was therefore resolved that the Chapel was competent to issue approval to external websites, provided that such approval did not involve the transfer of funds, property or administrative responsibility.

4. Consideration of irrelevantreviews

The Committee considered the website irrelevantreviews.

Geoff reported that the website was accessible through Neocities, and had not caused the Chapel any known difficulties in the past.

No objections were raised.

The Committee agreed that the website had demonstrated sufficient suitability for approval, particularly given that its proprietor had specifically requested it.

Decision: The website irrelevantreviews was granted official approval by the Chapel of St Letus Salata, effective immediately.

5. Evidence of Approval

Geoff raised the question of how the website proprietor might demonstrate that approval had been granted.

It was agreed that a verbal assurance would be insufficient, particularly where third parties might question whether a chapel had the necessary authority to issue such an approval.

The Committee therefore authorised the creation of an official approval badge.

The badge would be made available for display on the approved website, together with an explanation of the entitlements associated with it.

There was a brief discussion regarding whether an expiry date should be included.

It was agreed that no expiry date was necessary, as this would create additional administrative work.

Action: Geoff to issue the badge and publish the accompanying guidance.

6. Future Applications

The Committee acknowledged that other website proprietors might seek similar approval once the arrangement became known.

It was agreed that any such requests would be considered individually, although the Committee did not consider it necessary to establish a standing approvals subcommittee at this stage.

Geoff was asked to retain a record of approvals issued.

A suggestion that the Chapel might eventually require an application form was deferred pending evidence of demand.

7. Communication of Decision

Geoff was authorised to respond publicly to irrelevantreviews, confirming that the Committee had considered the matter and granted approval.

The response was to include the location of the badge and an explanation of how it could be used.

8. Close

There being no further business, the meeting was closed.

The Committee expressed satisfaction that the matter had been dealt with promptly and without the need for refreshments.

Minutes prepared by: Geoff

Status: Decision implemented; no further Committee action required.

Approval means that the Chapel Committee is happy for the website upon which the badge is place, can be described as being Chapel Approved. It is a modest indication of approval and does not mean that we have read every page or agree with everything on it.

Conditions of use

The badge, an explanation and instructions are published at:

Officially Chapel Approved

Websites followed by the Chapel may apply to display the badge. Once authorised, the badge can be accessed by using the embed code available at the link. Please remember that this is a website badge only, and it confers no parking entitlement to the site owner.

Register

Websites which have not yet received authorisation should continue to display the Not Chapel Approved badge. Submission of an application does not, in itself, constitute approval..

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker & website relationships maintenance operative

Please allow this message to serve as an Official Complaint to The Chapel Committee.

Recently, I have been made aware that my site sybernetics.net has received the immense honor of becoming Chapel Approved. While I am thrilled to have been selected by the committee to receive this title and the permission to display the Official Chapel Approved badge, I'm afraid it has caused a rift in my relationship with Ichomancer - who your organization may recognize from Ichomancer's Domain ichomancer.com.

Ichomancer - while thrilled by my recent accomplishment - has expressed severe disappointment in his lack of Chapel Approvement status, despite his ongoing services maintaining the habitat for Brian, the Fish. The disappointment this issue has caused has lead to strife in our relationship including (but not limited to) arguments about whose website is more fun, the silent treatment, and general pain and suffering.

Additionally, It has lead to the question - why would The Chapel Committee agree to have a digital fish hosted on a site that has not been officially Chapel-Approved?

Within the Chapel's information message regarding Chapel Approvement, you state: "If the Chapel is following your site, there was something on it that we liked, and we permit you to display the badge above, if you should wish to do so."

I would argue that the Aquarium where Brian is currently hosted would constitute as "something on it we liked".

While your Chapel Approvement information does state that he is "permitted" to use the badge (as The Chapel is currently following his site, as of writing) this does not constitute being the honorary recipient of being an officially chapel approved website, like myself.

To resolve this issue, I would be most appreciative if you could provide an Official Service recognizing Ichomancer as an Official Chapel Approved site.

Furthermore, I would like to sincerely apologize if this is the wrong place to submit a Formal Complaint - however, this leads me to my next complaint, which was that it was very hard to find the appropriate complaint channel or form.

I hope that this formal complaint finds you in good faith, please note that despite the issues this has caused I am still honoured to be Officially Chapel Approved. My development team is currently working on an appropriate display for the badge to ensure it is kept safe.

Sincerely,
Sybernetics

1. Opening Remarks

The meeting was called at short notice following receipt of a formal complaint from Sybernetics.

Geoff outlined the complaint, which concerned the failure to award Official Chapel Approved status to Ichomancer, despite his ongoing provision of accommodation for Brian the fish.

The Committee noted with concern that the matter had reportedly caused arguments, periods of silence and general pain and suffering between the parties.

2. Review of the Original Decision

The Committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the award of Chapel Approved status to Sybernetics. This was found to be fair and within the spirit of the Chapel approvals process.

It was established that Ichomancer’s website had also met the necessary criteria for approval and that this should have been recognised during the initial correspondence about rehoming Brian the fish.

Following examination of the available correspondence, the Committee accepted that the omission had been an administrative error.

Geoff apologised on behalf of the Committee and confirmed that no adverse assessment of Ichomancer’s website had taken place.

3. Restrictions on Retrospective Approval

The Committee considered whether the error could be corrected by issuing Ichomancer with the standard Chapel Approved badge.

Unfortunately, attention was drawn to the Chapel’s longstanding policy permitting only one Chapel Approved badge per household.

As Sybernetics had already received the household’s allocation, a further badge could not be issued without breaching this restriction.

Glyn pointed out that it was not known whether the proprietors of Sybernetics and Ichomancer currently shared a household. He considered it reasonable to assume that they would do so in future, as the Committee lacked the resources to monitor their domestic arrangements indefinitely.

Members discussed whether an exception could be made, given that the original omission was entirely the Chapel’s responsibility.

It was agreed that making an exception would undermine the purpose of having a restriction.

The Committee therefore concluded that, although the original decision was incorrect, it could not now be corrected.

4. Brian the fish

The Committee considered the implications of Brian the fish being accommodated on a website without full Chapel Approved status.

Members acknowledged that Ichomancer had provided excellent accommodation to date and agreed that Brian the fish should remain in his present accommodation. His welfare should not be adversely affected by the administrative status of his landlord or an oversight by Geoff.

5. Creation of Associate Chapel Approved Status

To address the recognised injustice without contravening the one-badge-per-household restriction, the Committee proposed the introduction of a new category of recognition:

Associate Chapel Approved Member

This status will be available to websites that would otherwise qualify for full Chapel Approved status but are prevented from receiving it by existing administrative restrictions.

Associate members will be entitled to display a separate Associate Chapel Approved badge.

It was further agreed that Associate status should carry substantially the same recognition as full approval. If challenged, however, the proprietor must clarify that approval is by association only.

Ichomancer was unanimously approved as the first Associate Chapel Approved Member.

6. Reported Relationship Difficulties

The Committee expressed regret that the original administrative error had caused difficulties between Sybernetics and Ichomancer.

The Committee hoped that the new Associate badge would assist in restoring normal relations.

7. Complaints Procedure

The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s difficulty in identifying the correct procedure for submitting a formal complaint.

Following discussion, it was confirmed that no formal complaints procedure currently existed, despite everyone thinking that there definitely was one.

Members agreed that this was unsatisfactory and that a suitable procedure should be established.

A new form will be added to the downloadable forms section of the website.

A proposal to establish a Complaints Subcommittee was deferred until the Committee had received sufficient complaints to justify one.

8. Closing Remarks

Geoff thanked members for their attendance and expressed satisfaction that the Committee had acknowledged the administrative error without requiring any amendment to the original decision.

The meeting closed with members content that both parties now held different forms of Chapel recognition, neither of which should be regarded as inferior to the other, notwithstanding the terminology.

There being no further matters, the meeting closed at 2:25 PM.