johnsonth wrote:I'd be interested to hear if you majority opinion thinks reservations should be dramatically altered, and if so, how.
I vote that "reservations" be renamed "restrictions" as discussed in the Reservation terminology thread. Restrictions have a needed function. I believe the problems caused by reservations is caused by the name "reservations" and the resulting mis-application of it's use.
johnsonth wrote:Re the term building scheduler, yes, this is problematic. A building scheduler should not be called a "scheduler" if he or she cannot schedule anything. We've discussed this before but nothing came out of it.
Yes, we talked about it in the How about another name for building scheduler thread.
johnsonth wrote:The problem is that stakes use "building scheduler" ubiquitously, so the term is hard to change (for example, to something like building coordinator). Any suggestions there? Give building schedulers rights to schedule anything on any calendar? At this point, it seems that the line between a building scheduler and an administrator becomes blurry and not worth distinguishing the two roles with separate names.
What better way to announce that there's a new scheduling model then to abolish old terminology?
"Building Scheduler" came from the pre-web days when there was no practical way for more then one person to have a completely up-to-date calendar. I'm not seeing a reason to keep that model except inertia.
If you do grant the building scheduler as a default admin, then we're back to the calendar 1.0 model as the path of least resistance.
But until you allow the "building scheduler" to be able to edit ALL calendars within the stake, they can't function in the old way. Not without double-entry of events into the system (one for the ward to see and one to book the facilities). That would really be a step backwards.
I think your biggest obstacle is people who try to fit the "old way" into the new system without completely reading the manual. The best way to make them think differently is to remove old terminology. If it's not in the Handbook, why keep it?