Distributed Scheduling vs Centralized Scheduling for Calendars

[aebrown]

If someone can tell me how the new calendar is designed to handle personal events in a self-service way, please let me know.

The new calendar is not designed to handle personal events in a self-service way. But of all the things that could be implemented, that seems like it should be pretty low on the priority list. After all, as you said, there are many stakes that don't allow the use of buildings for personal events. Those stakes don't need the feature at all. And for the other stakes, how often does this happen? Just glancing through our calendars, I'd estimate that out of the hundreds of events (more like a couple of thousand) on the calendar for our 7 wards and three locations, there are about 15-20 in the year that are personal events. Now of course I am not saying that our stake is typical -- I have no idea how often personal events occur elsewhere. But at least from my perspective, a special set of features and workflow for such a rare occurrence is a waste of time when I can rattle off 10 features I'd love to see that are more important.

Those comments relate to personal events. I know there are stakes who choose to require everything to go through building schedulers. For such stakes, the submission process is a much bigger issue than just personal events. And for those stakes, I can certainly see that a workflow for submitting and approving events is quite important.

[jdlessley]

I am not alone in my opinion that the new calendar lacks a clean and clear way to deal with personal events in a self-serve manner.

As aebrown stated, "The new calendar is not designed to handle personal events in a self-service way." I will add, I do not think it should be. My comments later will explain this.

In a perfect world, if the new calendar is truly a full self-service application, and we want to stick with the “distributed” model, shouldn’t it basically put a building scheduler out of a job?

I don't believe the calendar is intended to be full self-service for everyone. The key words are 'full self-service' and 'everyone'. Not all members need to have the ability to schedule events using resources without checking with a leader or designated responsible person. Not everyone is aware of Church policies and procedures regarding building, facilities, and property use. Members called to leader positions in auxiliaries and organizations are expected to be trained and understand or know where to find the policies and procedures. Members without leader positions are not expected to know these policies and procedures. Instead they should seek leadership guidance.

That being said I do believe there should be a way for all members to submit a request for resources even if they do not have editor rights. The classic calendar had this through the "Submit Event" button. This appears to me and many others to be a viable option. But until that, or something else similar, is implemented the options are to contact someone with calendar editor rights to make the reservation. Currently not even the calendar schedulers can meet this need with the limitations in effect for v2x. Some have suggested a calendar for these non-church activities with an editor or editors that others can contact.

I do not advocate self-serve beyond the functionality of submitting an event to a responsible person, either a unit leader or a member designated by the bishop/branch president (same for stake or branch), to verify the request against standing Church, stake/district, and ward/branch policies. Deconfliction should be able to be done by the requester before submitting - that is possible now to a certain degree, reservations and blocks notwithstanding.

Others have suggested (I am too lazy to go find the threads.) that each unit create a calendar for these private events. An editor or editors are designated by the Bishop/Branch President (same for the stake/district) is the point of contact to enter these events. It does require the member to contact them and give them the details. As already mentioned, there is little likelihood that there will be so many of these reservation requests as to make these types of reservation requests a burden to make or to process.

[bgtaylor4]

Even if they have the authority, they still need the (building) key.




One big problem with that idea is that the members don't have much control over what events get synced to their personal calendars. As a result, many will not subscribe at all and may result in lower attended to non-block meetings.


The thing I miss the most is the ability to take a stake assignment and "push" it down to the appropriate wards. Things like Ward Conference, Youth Temple Baptisms, Ward Service Projects, etc. That way the stake could see when it was, that it's spread out, ect. The closest I can get under the new system is to create a stake calendar for each ward. That seems rather clunky.

The number of members without keys is less than than the number who have them... and it seems to be approaching zero. I've been scheduling our building for three years and been asked to come let someone in twice -- both non-members (district scouting).

[GrasseDD]

As aebrown stated, "The classic calendar had this through the "Submit Event" button. This appears to me and many others to be a viable option.

I'll add my "Aye, aye" to this suggestion.
After training our stake council on the new calendar, the most common concern was about the missing "Submit" button. Frankly, I could not clearly explain to them how lack of that feature is an improvement. The wiki stated that there is "no need" (now changed to "less of a need") for such a button, and then lists several such needs.
When encouraging member use of the new tools, it would be helpful to know of a compelling purpose or principle for not having this feature, or at least that it is a planned future enhancement.

D.G.