Seeing the other ward(s) calendars as the BUILDING SCHEDULER

Discussions about the Calendar Tool at lds.org. Questions about the calendar on the classic site should be posted in the LUWS forum.
eblood66
Senior Member
Posts: 3721
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cumming, GA, USA

#21

Post by eblood66 »

bgtaylor4 wrote:You best understand and can evaluate those needs to which resources should be directed. I sustain you, or at least those who hired you and therefore you, in making those wise decisions.
It sounds like you have a mistaken impression about the nature of these forums. Almost everyone on these forums is simply a user like yourself. On this calendar forum there are a couple of developers who have been participating fairly frequently but for the most part (and this includes aebrown) posters are just users expressing their own opinions and trying to help each other figure out ways to find solutions given the software as it stands.
bgtaylor4 wrote: This is a feedback blog/board. My feedback is that we have chosen broad access in distributing a powerful tool into the hands of the untrained masses within a ward or stake over access by trained/called individuals. Certainly there, too, are many benefits. But a downside as well.
Although there are a couple of calendar developers on this forum who may see your feedback, my understanding is that policy changes like you're suggesting are decided on at higher level than just the developers. Generally those decisions are made by the product managers and general authorities with responsibility for these areas. They are probably more likely to see your feedback if you submit it using the Feedback link on the main lds.org page.
bgtaylor4 wrote:Meanwhile, feedback should be welcomed; perhaps less dismissive and condescending.

I don't think you should consider any of the responses here as condescending. We're all at the same level as you and different people in different situations may have different opinions and should be able to express them here as well.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 32115
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#22

Post by russellhltn »

bgtaylor4 wrote:Supplying someone, like a stake or ward calendar/building specialist, trained and called, with the membership number of inactive members in wards who would never use the site, provides the full access afforded to general membership of that ward.

I believe that's called "ID Theft". The ends would not justify the means.
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.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15138
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

#23

Post by aebrown »

bgtaylor4 wrote:I am not a software developer. So thank you for your insight. I had ignorantly assumed rather that resources had been expended to block access for some purpose.

I happen to be a software developer, but I have never worked on the development of any of the tools on lds.org. So my perspective is as a user who happens to be a software developer, not as a developer on the actual projects we are discussing.
bgtaylor4 wrote:There is a related inconvenience built into another portion of LDS.org -- Directory. As we all know who live in areas where the Church grows, wards and stakes split -- GOOD LUCK trying to stay in touch with or find people outside of your stake. The software is built to insulate wards and stakes from each other. And there is a downside to that.

Yes, there is a downside to restricting information to people within a stake. But there are significant legal and ethical concerns connected with opening up that information too much.
bgtaylor4 wrote:You best understand and can evaluate those needs to which resources should be directed. I sustain you, or at least those who hired you and therefore you, in making those wise decisions.

As I explained above, I have nothing to do with the development of these tools. I, like you, sustain those who do direct those development efforts, and try to give my feedback where it might be helpful.
bgtaylor4 wrote:This is a feedback blog/board. My feedback is that we have chosen broad access in distributing a powerful tool into the hands of the untrained masses within a ward or stake over access by trained/called individuals. Certainly there, too, are many benefits. But a downside as well.

The distributed model used for scheduling is restricted to called individuals who have been selected by the ward/stake leadership by name or by calling to perform scheduling and other functions. It is certainly not open to "the untrained masses". For those members who have not been specifically designated as editors or administrators, all they can do is view calendars and synchronize their calendars with third-party calendars. They have no access to change anything on the calendar.

Stakes and wards would certainly be wise to distribute the ability to schedule events only as broadly as they have ability to train those calendar editors to perform their tasks properly. But the role of a calendar editor is rather limited, and doesn't require much training. We have dozens of people throughout our stake performing those functions with very few problems.
bgtaylor4 wrote:Meanwhile, feedback should be welcomed; perhaps less dismissive and condescending.

I am sorry if I gave that impression. Sometimes in my haste to share information and contrasting viewpoints I don't take the time to acknowledge the value of the posts to which I am responding. For that I sincerely apologize. I certainly appreciate your efforts to share your views and help improve these tools.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
bgtaylor4
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:07 am

#24

Post by bgtaylor4 »

Like I said, in being CLEAR, never asked nor had anyone grant such. We know better because of the reasons you state. But in reality we trust ward clerks with the power to do everything you're mentioning here -- make changes, possibly expose information and so forth. I did say "trained and called."
Post Reply

Return to “Calendar”