Page 8 of 8

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:00 am
by aebrown
Doughy wrote:I called the church support desk yesterday and reported this problem directly to IT. Hopefully they have already fixed the problem. I'll follow up on my ticket number in a few days and report back what they tell me.


Techgy wrote:The service desk is VERY good at getting back to someone - at least that's been my experience.


zaneclark wrote: I eagerly await the forthcoming "new and improved" LUWS update.....


AileneRHerrick wrote:Doughy, have you heard anything back yet? We're all gripping our seats!!!


Not to throw cold water on this issue, but it seems that there is some unrealistic optimism regarding the speed with which this issue might get fixed. It's an important issue, and I also hope that it will be addressed "soon". I have no personal knowledge of the Church's development process for this project other than what I read on this forum, so the following is simply based on my opinion and decades of experience as a software developer.

Although getting a response from the service desk may happen relatively quickly, identifying the actual problem, duplicating it consistently, fixing it in the code, testing it thoroughly, and then deploying the fix is not going to happen in a matter of days, which seems to be the expectation here. That process could easily take weeks, and depending on where it fits in the list of priorities and particular release schedules, could even take months.

It may be that the issue won't be addressed at all in LUWS 1.0, but will be pushed off to LUWS 2.0, which has no announced release date. So I would recommend patience while you wait for the fix, and if you are experiencing the problems detailed in this thread, that you consider some of the alternate workarounds suggested in this thread.

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:08 am
by AileneRHerrick
Alan_Brown wrote:Not to throw cold water on this issue, but it seems that there is some unrealistic optimism regarding the speed with which this issue might get fixed. It's an important issue, and I also hope that it will be addressed "soon". I have no personal knowledge of the Church's development process for this project other than what I read on this forum, so the following is simply based on my opinion and decades of experience as a software developer.

Although getting a response from the service desk may happen relatively quickly, identifying the actual problem, duplicating it consistently, fixing it in the code, testing it thoroughly, and then deploying the fix is not going to happen in a matter of days, which seems to be the expectation here. That process could easily take weeks, and depending on where it fits in the list of priorities and particular release schedules, could even take months.

It may be that the issue won't be addressed at all in LUWS 1.0, but will be pushed off to LUWS 2.0, which has no announced release date. So I would recommend patience while you wait for the fix, and if you are experiencing the problems detailed in this thread, that you consider some of the alternate workarounds suggested in this thread.


Well of course, we would ALL love an immediate fix... you're right that it probably won't happen. I was just hoping for some sort of indication as to what was being done... whether we will have to wait for the next release or what... :) Thanks for your input to shed some light (or cold water) on the subject!

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:09 am
by doughy
Alan_Brown wrote:Not to throw cold water on this issue, but it seems that there is some unrealistic optimism regarding the speed with which this issue might get fixed. It's an important issue, and I also hope that it will be addressed "soon". I have no personal knowledge of the Church's development process for this project other than what I read on this forum, so the following is simply based on my opinion and decades of experience as a software developer.

Although getting a response from the service desk may happen relatively quickly, identifying the actual problem, duplicating it consistently, fixing it in the code, testing it thoroughly, and then deploying the fix is not going to happen in a matter of days, which seems to be the expectation here. That process could easily take weeks, and depending on where it fits in the list of priorities and particular release schedules, could even take months.

It may be that the issue won't be addressed at all in LUWS 1.0, but will be pushed off to LUWS 2.0, which has no announced release date. So I would recommend patience while you wait for the fix, and if you are experiencing the problems detailed in this thread, that you consider some of the alternate workarounds suggested in this thread.


I too am an engineer and recognize that fixes are sometimes difficult to find. The problem here isn't in the engineering time. It's that they keep re-assigning it to different teams, and not even taking a look at the issue. For this issue to ever be resolved, it has to be at least assigned to the right person. The help desk told me that they look at each issue within about 3 days, so hopefully they will get to it this time around.

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:56 pm
by dmaynes
zaneclark wrote:That line from an old movie perfectly describes my situation. I have been pretty smug in reading these posts about broadcast email failures.....until yesterday. My broadcast was not received by the assembled masses, even though I received the notice that "Your email has been sent to the following recipients:" None of the "following recipients" received in spite of this very positive statement. I used the list of "following recipients" to create a new email list which I used to send the post from my own mail program. I eagerly await the forthcoming "new and improved" LUWS update.....


My e-mail broadcast today was successful on the first try. (At least, I received the verification e-mail, the actual e-mail, expected bouncebacks, and a few unexpected bouncebacks--from an ISP that may be down.)

That makes three weeks in a row that the e-mail has been successfully broadcast on the first attempt. I was hopeful that the issue was partially resolved, until I read this post.

I have 99 e-mail addresses in my ward list now. I will keep reporting success or failure until we hear that the issue is resolved.

Thanks,
Dennis

6 weeks of successful broadcasts

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:02 am
by dmaynes
dmaynes wrote:That makes three weeks in a row that the e-mail has been successfully broadcast on the first attempt. I was hopeful that the issue was partially resolved, until I read this post.


My e-mail broadcast was successfully sent on the first attempt two days ago. I now have six consecutive weeks of successful broadcasts on the first attempt with my ward's website. If this is still an issue, it has not been failing for me, lately.

Thanks,
Dennis

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:05 am
by AileneRHerrick
dmaynes wrote:My e-mail broadcast was successfully sent on the first attempt two days ago. I now have six consecutive weeks of successful broadcasts on the first attempt with my ward's website. If this is still an issue, it has not been failing for me, lately.

Thanks,
Dennis


Thanks for your updates. I don't think I've had any recent trouble either. Sometimes the broadcasts are slightly delayed, but nothing abnormal for the internet...

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:38 am
by doughy
After weeks of the run-around, the church IT support desk finally told me that they don't handle ward website type stuff. They said I need to call the MLS department. Wow.

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:01 pm
by AileneRHerrick
Doughy wrote:After weeks of the run-around, the church IT support desk finally told me that they don't handle ward website type stuff. They said I need to call the MLS department. Wow.


Wow is right. That's confusing!