Home Teaching / Visiting Teaching Application

When the Church has need of help from the technology community, we will post that need in this forum.
Locked
User avatar
daddy-o-p40
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

#121

Post by daddy-o-p40 »

To avoid further angst about this project and to keep it from futher imploding. The project owners must publish a draft of the requirements definition. Then if they intend to included the community, let them provide feedback, and then firm up the requirements definition with explanations as to why feedback items could not be implemented.

Otherwise, this "community developed" or more like "community coded" project will be a lot of work with little "real" benefit to the actual needs for this type of tool.
"What have I done for someone today?" Thomas Monson
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15127
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

#122

Post by aebrown »

daddy-o wrote:To avoid further angst about this project and to keep it from futher imploding. The project owners must publish a draft of the requirements definition. Then if they intend to included the community, let them provide feedback, and then firm up the requirements definition with explanations as to why feedback items could not be implemented.

Otherwise, this "community developed" or more like "community coded" project will be a lot of work with little "real" benefit to the actual needs for this type of tool.
Have you reviewed the extensive documentation on the wiki for the Home Teaching / Visiting Teaching Application? I'm not sure what you mean by "requirements definition" that isn't already documented there.

The community has been heavily involved. Community members have made significant contributions. It's still a Church project, so some issues will be determined by inspired priesthood leaders, which I assume members of the Church would welcome.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31297
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#123

Post by russellhltn »

boomerbubba wrote:I notice on the wiki that the core functionality of Return and Report -- collecting home- and visiting-teaching results online from teachers -- has been cut from the design of the new system.
If I read it correctly, it hasn't been removed completely, just deferred from the specs of V1. I'm not sure why, but I'd guess it's to take the project in baby steps - to get the most essential core working and then build on it. Since you have to be able to manage districts before anyone can report, all that has to come first.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#124

Post by RossEvans »

RussellHltn wrote:If I read it correctly, it hasn't been removed completely, just deferred from the specs of V1. I'm not sure why, but I'd guess it's to take the project in baby steps - to get the most essential core working and then build on it. Since you have to be able to manage districts before anyone can report, all that has to come first.

The way I read it, the teacher-reporting functionality is not in V1, V2 or V3, but is now listed among "Other Proposed Features" that may or may not be implemented eventually.

See the Design and Build page of the wiki. Not all wiki pages have been updated yet to reflect this policy decision. The Design and Build page says expressly: "NOTE: While some of the design comps may display otherwise, it has not been determined if the functionality for each individual to report their own visits will be included in any version of this project."

I am not contending over the policy, just trying to get the facts straight about the status. As I understand it, there is an overriding caveat that the whole project may never get past a prototype stage. And even if it is built, according to the design documents, stakes will still have the option not to use it.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#125

Post by mkmurray »

boomerbubba wrote:The way I read it, the teacher-reporting functionality is not in V1, V2 or V3, but is now listed among "Other Proposed Features" that may or may not be implemented eventually.
Yeah I get kind of a mixed feeling as well about whether it is a post-V1 feature, or a not slated yet feature. It could be in the "Other Proposed Features" until the Brethren approve it, if they do at all. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because to me that is the compelling feature. I am losing interest quickly.

Although, I just saw this edit from last night, which appears to classify the teacher-reporting feature as "post-V1": https://tech.lds.org/wiki/index.php/Hom ... post-v1.29
Brad O. wrote:...That is absolutely unbelievable. I don't see how my original vision for this project could be skewed any worse than it has been.
If you read the latest edits in the Wiki, there really isn't mention of ReturnAndReport.org anymore. The HT/VT App appears to no longer be based on RaR, but instead there is this statement:
While there have been many great ideas proposed, Version 1 of this project should fairly closely mirror (but not add to) existing functionality available in the HT/VT module of MLS.
I'll admit, this statement could indicate one individual's interpretation or opinion. But it is safe to say that apparently the focus (and inspiration) has shifted.
Many questions are already answered on the Tech Wiki. Check it out!
User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

#126

Post by brado426 »

boomerbubba wrote:The way I read it, the teacher-reporting functionality is not in V1, V2 or V3, but is now listed among "Other Proposed Features" that may or may not be implemented eventually.

See the Design and Build page of the wiki. Not all wiki pages have been updated yet to reflect this policy decision.

I am not contending over the policy, just trying to get the facts straight about the status. As I understand it, there is an overriding caveat that the whole project may never get past a prototype stage. And even if it is built, according to the design documents, stakes will still have the option not to use it.

You hit the nail on the head boomerbubba. If the Church is going to have a community developed project, the Church should stand behind it and support the people who are working on it. It is beyond me why anyone would want to spend a second of their valuable time working on an official Church project that does not have full support of the Church. The phrase, "This project may or may not ever be used" is the ultimate indication of this. In my entire career, I have never started working on a project with a preset understanding that the project may not be approved for the masses.

In the future, I hope that the Church will determine the requirements for and show its commitment to the project up front. Then, I think it is reasonable to ask people to donate their time to the cause.

I'm personally upset about these developments because I have invested years doing the analysis and working on a similar project in an attempt to prevent this. I have begged the Church for two years to look at my work in depth and to talk to the people who are using it to determine what works and what does not. Once again, I implore those who have the decision-making power to take a break and take advantage of these resources that are freely available.

Brad O.
User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

#127

Post by brado426 »

mkmurray wrote: If you read the latest edits in the Wiki, there really isn't mention of ReturnAndReport.org anymore. The HT/VT App appears to no longer be based on RaR, but instead there is this statement:

I'll admit, this statement could indicate one individual's interpretation or opinion. But it is safe to say that apparently the focus (and inspiration) has shifted.

This is appropriate because RAR's focus has shifted also. It is no longer a specific Home/Visiting Teaching tool, but a generic reporting tool that can be used for any purpose.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#128

Post by RossEvans »


While there have been many great ideas proposed, Version 1 of this project should fairly closely mirror (but not add to) existing functionality available in the HT/VT module of MLS.

However, the design as outlined actually subtracts from the existing functionality: It fails to maintain the integrated membership data in MLS. And all HT/VT data -- even assignments -- would be stripped out of MLS if local units opt to use the new system.

I hope that our stake would opt to use the existing functionality of MLS instead, as the published plan contemplates.
kennethjorgensen
Community Moderators
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Alnwick, UK

#129

Post by kennethjorgensen »

Brad O. wrote:You hit the nail on the head boomerbubba. If the Church is going to have a community developed project, the Church should stand behind it and support the people who are working on it. It is beyond me why anyone would want to spend a second of their valuable time working on an official Church project that does not have full support of the Church. The phrase, "This project may or may not ever be used" is the ultimate indication of this. In my entire career, I have never started working on a project with a preset understanding that the project may not be approved for the masses.
I read that statement differently. Community developed projects is a new era within the church, untried and untested. This would be the first such project and therefore it is impossible to say if the quality of the project would be good enough to deploy for the masses.

I dont think that statement is an indication that the church is not committed to this but it would be fair to say there are many important projects all of great importance.

I bet community developed projects is not an easy thing to correlate either when you rely on volunteers who will be doing this in their spare time.

As for the HT/VT app not being based on RAR I liked your comment about them being different as RAR has tasken its own direction and I can to some degree understand why the HT/VT app would take a direction to follow whats in MLS but I too hope to see further openness about what is and what isnt and engage more on "research".
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#130

Post by RossEvans »

dkjorgi wrote:I read that statement differently. Community developed projects is a new era within the church, untried and untested. This would be the first such project and therefore it is impossible to say if the quality of the project would be good enough to deploy for the masses.
For the record, I have no problem with the warning that a community-based project might not be released. That caveat has been explicit from the beginning on the wiki.
Locked

Return to “Development Help Wanted”