Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:51 am
by mfmohlma
Techgy wrote:Depending upon the type of emergency a cell phone may not be useable. In California our biggest concern here are earthquakes. Quite often immediately following an earthquake the phone lines (and cell phone services) are so swamped with calls that they are often overloaded and when this happens getting a cell phone to work takes some time.
This is actually precisely the reason why a text messaging functionality would be useful. Since SMS travels over the control channel of cell-phone networks and comprises a much smaller data footprint than a voice conversation, the probability of it getting through is much higher.

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:54 am
by russellhltn
Techgy wrote:Depending upon the type of emergency a cell phone may not be useable. In California our biggest concern here are earthquakes. Quite often immediately following an earthquake the phone lines (and cell phone services) are so swamped with calls that they are often overloaded and when this happens getting a cell phone to work takes some time.

That's true of any mode of communication. However, to date, text messages seems to stand a better chance of getting though, even when cell sites are jammed with calls. Text messages only take a small bit of bandwidth and the phone will re-try sending the message. A phone call needs several minutes of streaming audio and can be interrupted at any time.
dmaynes wrote:There is either an ambiguity or an inconsistency in the policy because it states that no e-mail networks or groups except those sponsored by the Church are approved.

I think it depends on how you define the terms. It says "The Church has established a number of global Web sites and e-mail networks. [...] No other sites are authorized.
[...]
Any such Web sites or e-mail groups should be discontinued immediately."

How that applies to your situation depends on how you and your local leaders interpret "No other sites are authorized" and "e-mail groups". One interpretation of "e-mail group" is things like yahoo groups, google groups, listserv, etc.

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:57 am
by russellhltn
JLRose wrote:This is not a vote against the idea presented above, just a reality check that texting will not get you blanket coverage
I think a bigger challenge is keeping the list up to date between move-ins, move-outs, number changes, etc. Not impossible, but not trivial.

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:28 pm
by dmaynes
RussellHltn wrote:I think a bigger challenge is keeping the list up to date between move-ins, move-outs, number changes, etc. Not impossible, but not trivial.
I agree that coordination can be difficult. That's where the LUWS can provide a framework for this functionality, so that it doesn't have to be reinvented with every ward and with every member.

I think the manpower challenge is really not a technology issue. As a functionality like this is adopted, technology can be devised to support the functionality. The manpower and resource challenges are:
1- Can the ward take on this task without impacting the other staffing areas that need attention? Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. Our emergency preparedness coordinator goes to a meeting once a month, coordinates our block assignments, and (as far as I can tell) little else is required.
2- Amidst all of their other responsibilities, can the bishopric allocate sufficient attention to see that the initiative gets proper priority?

But, my perspective is: (1) I shouldn't be afraid to devote time to my calling, (2) I shouldn't worry if my calling requires me to perform menial tasks (like comparing lists), (3) My service will be of some benefit to other members, and (4) Who's work is this anyway?

Thanks,
Dennis

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:59 pm
by dmaynes
RussellHltn wrote:I think it depends on how you define the terms. It says "The Church has established a number of global Web sites and e-mail networks. [...] No other sites are authorized.
[...]
Any such Web sites or e-mail groups should be discontinued immediately."

How that applies to your situation depends on how you and your local leaders interpret "No other sites are authorized" and "e-mail groups". One interpretation of "e-mail group" is things like yahoo groups, google groups, listserv, etc.
I agree that definitions are very important. We are obviously authorized to use private e-mail accounts in connection with the LUWS. So, "e-mail group" should not be interpreted as a collection of e-mail accounts.

The letter also states that the Church may provide e-mail services for priesthood leaders. Is it possible to create an e-mail account through one of the Church e-mail networks for this purpose? If so, how does one go about doing this?

Thanks,
Dennis

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:27 pm
by jdlessley
dmaynes wrote:The letter also states that the Church may provide e-mail services for priesthood leaders. Is it possible to create an e-mail account through one of the Church e-mail networks for this purpose? If so, how does one go about doing this?
One of the Church e-mail networks for priesthood leaders that comes to mind is LDSMail.net. It is a limited use network available only to leaders within specifically identified callings/positions. I am not certain how one gets an LDSMail account.

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:30 pm
by techgy
jdlessley wrote:One of the Church e-mail networks for priesthood leaders that comes to mind is LDSMail.net. It is a limited use network available only to leaders within specifically identified callings/positions. I am not certain how one gets an LDSMail account.
If you're an employee of the church or full-time missionary that helps.
Our Institute director - a church employee has one.