Home Teaching / Visiting Teaching Application

[brado426]

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.

I guess I'm the only one. What I want to hear is, "We're going to do this and we need YOUR help!" What I'm hearing is, "We might do this and you can help if you want, but we're not so sure we're going to do it." To confirm this, we have core features being removed from the project that completely eliminates the original intent leaving many of us wondering, "What's the purpose of proceeding?"

Brad O.

[kennethjorgensen]

I guess I'm the only one. What I want to hear is, "We're going to do this and we need YOUR help!" What I'm hearing is, "We might do this and you can help if you want, but we're not so sure we're going to do it."

I think it is great the church is embarking on Community development which I can imagine must throw up many new challenges which are different to the normal environment of in-house software development and therefore I too would throw caution to the wind.
I am not saying you are wrong but just showing there is always two sides to a coin (in terms of opinion).

To confirm this, we have core features being removed from the project that completely eliminates the original intent leaving many of us wondering, "What's the purpose of proceeding?"Brad O.

I think the problem here is it depends on who defines "original intent".

I absolutely love the original idea of RAR and think you fully deserved the award you got for that.
I equally love YouthMaster for the same original idea to show how technology can be used in a church setting.
At the same time there are also things about RAR I think are pointless.
That's life.

We have to realise our eyes will look differently from those looking at this more globally. They have to see what brings best value for money to the masses ie many different countries with many different setups.

Another good example would be the unit websites, some cannot understand why effort is not used to enhance the functionality already here but others who do not have access to unite websites at all would want this first. You cannot always do both in the same timeframe.

If the HT/VT app brings online reporting to the masses then I think thats a great thing. Ok it hasnt got everything in it that I would have hoped for but I am pleased it is still going ahead and I am greatful for those in the community who has the needed skillset to take it forward.

I cannot complain as I do not have the needed skillset in JAVA and I assume neither do you.

[brado426]

I think it is great the church is embarking on Community development which I can imagine must throw up many new challenges which are different to the normal environment of in-house software development and therefore I too would throw caution to the wind.
I am not saying you are wrong but just showing there is always two sides to a coin (in terms of opinion).



I think the problem here is it depends on who defines "original intent".

I absolutely love the original idea of RAR and think you fully deserved the award you got for that.
I equally love YouthMaster for the same original idea to show how technology can be used in a church setting.
At the same time there are also things about RAR I think are pointless.
That's life.

We have to realise our eyes will look differently from those looking at this more globally. They have to see what brings best value for money to the masses ie many different countries with many different setups.

Another good example would be the unit websites, some cannot understand why effort is not used to enhance the functionality already here but others who do not have access to unite websites at all would want this first. You cannot always do both in the same timeframe.

If the HT/VT app brings online reporting to the masses then I think thats a great thing. Ok it hasnt got everything in it that I would have hoped for but I am pleased it is still going ahead and I am greatful for those in the community who has the needed skillset to take it forward.

I cannot complain as I do not have the needed skillset in JAVA and I assume neither do you.

You're right.... regardless of these recent developments, I would not be able to contribute because I do not have the skillset or the time to help. But that is not the point.

We started out on this venture [when I did have the time and the skillset] to accomplish something. A lot of us spent a great amount of time researching and developing a solution. I'm irritated that all of our research has been thrown out. At first it was a few items that we [many of us] felt were important. Now, the core intent of the project is in question.

First, I was hoping that RAR could end up being the Church's official solution for Home/Visiting teaching. Eventually, after spending countless hours on it, it was made clear to me that this would never happen.

Next, I was hoping that RAR could be an official pilot-test so the Church could learn from it and develop an official application based on what was learned from it. This too was shot down.

Next, I financed RAR myself and provided it, myself and RAR's users as resources to help the Church with the official project. Needless to say, this was also a rejected proposal.

Finally, I merely hoped that while the Church found it necessary to ignore RAR for legal and [whatever other] reasons, some minor element of my work would be of some benefit the the Church. These recent developments have caused me to feel that every second I spent on this project over the past 3 years has been a complete waste of time [at least regarding the official Church project.] You must understand why I would feel this way.

At the same time, I do understand why the Church has made [most of] the decisiions it has made. I've worked for large corporations and I know as well as anyone else that there are a lot of legal and beurocratic issues that complicate things greatly.

What meaning is an award when every single suggestion that I have ever put forth over the past 3 years has fallen upon deaf ears??? I have the award sitting right here and it does mean something to me. To me, it means that community members recognize some work that I have done has drastically helped people in their Home & Visiting Teaching duties throughout the world with RAR. Anyone can say, "Let's start a community Home/Visiting Teaching developed project." I was never interested in attaining an award. I was interested in helping Home and Visiting Teaching.

I should have been smart like the YouthMaster guy and never assumed that my work could ever be a Church project. But it is quite stressful spending time on an unofficial project that is threatened with being shut down for non-compliance with official policy.

Well, I'm sure everyone has had quite enough of my negative comments in here, but the good news for you is that I am completely spent on this whole issue. I have tried to move past this and ignore it countless times, but I sincerely hope that I can resist the urge to continue any further comments on this because I know I'm just coming off as being a whiner that is not getting his way.

Thanks,

Brad O.

[mkmurray]

Now, the core intent of the project is in question.

I'll make one minor correction. The "original intent" of the project could be "in question" (originally, it was to mimic many of RaR's features). The "core intent" of the project is pretty clear now for version 1 of the project. That is to duplicate (but not add to) the existing functionality of the HT/VT modules in MLS to be a web-based app, eventually incorporated into LUWS.

At the same time, I do understand why the Church has made [most of] the decisiions it has made. I've worked for large corporations and I know as well as anyone else that there are a lot of legal and beurocratic issues that complicate things greatly.

I would be careful with this statement. I'm sure you know and have a testimony that this organization is run like no other organization on Earth. Yes, it is a large, complex organization that does large, complex things. And it does have to deal with legal issues that are unfortunate because of the nature of the times and society we live in. But again, the Church does not run itself like most other large corporations, especially in a bureaucratic way.

I have a close relative that has worked for the Church for an entire career. He is now at a level where you can't go any higher as a paid employee of the Church managing temporal matters. He has told me stories of being in meetings with the Brethren and how intimately they are involved and concerned with even the littlest things. It is unlike anything I have ever heard of in the large corporate world.

From talking with some of the Church employees working on the community project, I know the Brethren have more recently been deeply involved in setting the requirements and goals of the project. This must be respected, and not just chalked up to bureaucracy.

[brado426]

I'll make one minor correction. The "original intent" of the project could be "in question" (originally, it was to mimic many of RaR's features). The "core intent" of the project is pretty clear now for version 1 of the project. That is to duplicate (but not add to) the existing functionality of the HT/VT modules in MLS to be a web-based app, eventually incorporated into LUWS.

Fine... original intent.

I would be careful with this statement. I'm sure you know and have a testimony that this organization is run like no other organization on Earth. Yes, it is a large, complex organization that does large, complex things. And it does have to deal with legal issues that are unfortunate because of the nature of the times and society we live in. But again, the Church does not run itself like most other large corporations, especially in a bureaucratic way.

I'm only commenting based on the information that I have. It is not up to me to determine how many of these decisions have been made based on revelation and how many have been made based on logic. When Joseph Smith felt that something was important, he was more likely to bother the Lord with it a bit more. I don't get the sense that anyone but a few members of the community really believe in the importance of this. You can easily tell that I am one of those people who believes.

If the Brethren feel good about this decision while I do not, that is unfortunate, but a fact of life. I do not expect them to change their decision based on my rantings. All I can do is encourage them to take the time to talk to the people who have personally witnessed what this can do for Home and Visiting Teaching and use that information to determine whether it is worth running by the Lord again.

Brad O.

[RossEvans]

The "core intent" of the project is pretty clear now for version 1 of the project. That is to duplicate (but not add to) the existing functionality of the HT/VT modules in MLS to be a web-based app, eventually incorporated into LUWS.

Quite apart from the issue of collecting teachers' HT/VT results online, the potential of that intended architecture is interesting.

Once the new standardized callings data starts being uploaded to the central databases -- both for purposes of authentication and reporting -- there could exist a potential for integrated membership reporting (member and family detail, the new HT/VT data, and callings) on the web. That could eventually supplant the integrated reporting -- and the very important file exports for external helper apps -- that exist in MLS today, and even add a web-based API.

However, that theoretical potential is not even in plan for versions 1, 2 or 3 of the HT/VT app. It would seem premature for local units -- who will have the choice of adopting the new system or sticking with MLS -- to abandon the existing integration of MLS for a partial replacement and limited benefits. So my advice to our local priesthood leaders would be to wait for such integrated online functionality to materialize. (Interestingly, from my understanding of the architecture, it would probably not be that hard to add. The marginal functionality would all just be web-based output.)

[brado426]

It took me a whole week to cool down and realize the error of my ways, but I apologize for all of my previous comments. I should have just kept my big fat mouth shut.

Brad O.

[daddy-o-p40]

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.

Glad to hear you think that the community, whoever they are, have been heavily involved.

What is being said is ....how could one of the two root/core functions statistical reporting by the teachers (the other is the email reminders) be omitted from version one.

That's a major . Like building a car and then trying to fit the engine in it after you have shipped it to the car dealership.

That makes you wonder about the requirements definition and the management of the project.

[mkmurray]

Glad to hear you think that the community, whoever they are, have been heavily involved.

What is being said is ....how could one of the two root/core functions statistical reporting by the teachers (the other is the email reminders) be omitted from version one.

That's a major . Like building a car and then trying to fit the engine in it after you have shipped it to the car dealership.

That makes you wonder about the requirements definition and the management of the project.

No, it doesn't make me wonder about the management of the project. And honestly, I can't stand to read these ignorant statements anymore (from more than just you daddy-o).

As I have stated several times now in this very thread, it is the spiritual leadership of the Church that have chosen the requirements as they stand. It is not some temporal Church employee who thinks they just know better than you. This is not RaR anymore, it is a website duplication of HT/VT functionality as it current exists in MLS.

I will not tolerate any more of this kind of talk about priesthood leadership of the Church. Cease this at once or the thread will be locked permanently.

[brado426]

No, it doesn't make me wonder about the management of the project. And honestly, I can't stand to read these ignorant statements anymore (from more than just you daddy-o).

As I have stated several times now in this very thread, it is the spiritual leadership of the Church that have chosen the requirements as they stand. It is not some temporal Church employee who thinks they just know better than you. This is not RaR anymore, it is a website duplication of HT/VT functionality as it current exists in MLS.

I will not tolerate any more of this kind of talk about priesthood leadership of the Church. Cease this at once or the thread will be locked permanently.

If you're referring to me, I probably should have kept all those rantings to myself, but I never meant any disrespect to "The Brethren." I simply feel that we (the community) have failed to pass on our enthusiasm (or perhaps we lack the ability to do so.) I'm not holding anything against "The Brethren" or doubting their ability to make decisions for the Church because of this.

Brad O.