tomw wrote:Let me assure you that we are talking with the MLS people. I sit near the PM for the project and coincidentally he is related to me through marriage. I have discussed what we are doing and he is on board. Management is on board with the decision that the HT/VT will lead the way in storing data for HT/VT and then MLS will integrate with it when they are ready. Does that make sense?
Well, since the units are supposed to choose between using this HT/VT app or MLS, my recommendation to my bishop would be that "when they are ready," then we would convert to the new app, but not before. If that time is relatively soon -- such as the "mid 2009" date Chad threw out in the Wiki discussion -- I still think the 1.0 launch should be planned to include it.
An earlier demonstration, with no integration, is possible with duplicate data entry. No doubt some units would participate in such a demonstration, just as they have with the standalone RAR application. Our HP/EQ/RS leaders might consider doing that. But I think few bishops would willingly forgo the existing reporting of even HT/VT teachers and teaching assignments, which is an important part of basic membership reporting in MLS and its downstream dependents. Going to a second source to view HT/VT results is much more thinkable.
In practice, I think the choice of which tool to adopt would be made at the stake level in many or most cases, because stakes might prefer their wards and branches to use the same methods.