Tech Forum

dshepher wrote:In our Stake, we use the term "assignments" for the current calendar "reservation" functionality. It provides a way to "assign" locations and resources to a unit for a particular period

As I noted in this post, the term "Assignment" was the original term for this concept in the first release of the new Calendar. I don't know if your stake's usage of that term is a holdover from the past, or if you simply like the term better. But I agree that "reservation" is worse than "assignment" because "reservation" implies something that a reservation doesn't deliver -- a rock solid booking of the building/room that no one can schedule on top of.

dshepher, you might just have something there. I like the term "Assignments" so why not call the position "Building Assignments Coordinator", their responsibility would be to just assign locations and resources as you mentioned above. With each ward assigned to the building being responsible to booking/scheduling their own events, to include privet events.

A clerk or ex-sec in each ward could be responsible for adding privet events and getting the key to the members.

For members not assigned to a ward in the building they could contact the agent Bishops clerk/ex-sec to book the event and pickup a key. I also think the "Building Assignment Coordinator" should come out of the agent Bishops ward. Here again I think the best position for this would be a clerk or ex-Sec.

Gary_Miller wrote:I also think the "Building Assignment Coordinator" should come out of the agent Bishops ward. Here again I think the best position for this would be a clerk or ex-Sec.

Let's not forget the sisters for this assignment. There are no reasons I can think to limit this to the priesthood.

I placed it in the clerks/ex-sec office because I consider it to be an administrative task and what better place but in administration office. That and the position deals with assigning locations and resources not booking events and those callings by virtue of the meetings they attend are in the best position to have the information needed to assign locations and resources when needed. And if done correctly it won't take much time at all.

The sisters would still have the responsibility for booking the events for their organizations.

dshepher wrote:In our Stake, we use the term "assignments" for the current calendar "reservation" functionality.

That's an improvement over "reservation", but I'm not sure how that works with "blocked".

Also, "assignment" sounds too much like "what ward meets at what building". I see the documentation mentions building schedulers being assigned to a location. So I think there's potential for confusion.

OTOH, one of the few places the word "restriction" shows up in the help file is in explaining how "reservations" work.

The other question is would the functionality of "assign" sound too much like "reservation" and still cause people to use that function instead of creating a event? The whole reason we want to change the language is to get people to understand the usage properly. It seems to me that "restriction" is 180 degrees from "reservation" so it is more likely to cause re-thinking among the existing "building schedulers".

Gary_Miller wrote:I placed it in the clerks/ex-sec office because I consider it to be an administrative...

Administrative or not, there is nothing I can see or find that limits this to the priesthood.

jdlessley wrote:Administrative or not, there is nothing I can see or find that limits this to the priesthood.

The information I gave was only my suggestions and feed back given as was asked for by "johnsonth". It was only my opinion on how I think it should be done, who I think would be the best to do the task, and why I thought that way. Others may have other thoughts, I have no problem with that. The whole purpose here is to discuss the issue and see if we can help the designers correct a potential problem by providing feed back.

I've only been exploring the use of the calendar for a the past two weeks, I'm sure there are others here who have been using it allot longer than that. However, the things I have seen in my area on the calendar use and read from some of the statements on this form, have been way out of sink with what I have read in the help section of the calendar. It seems like no one has read the help information as things related to calendaring are still being done the old way. Which just messes thing up in the end.

This new calendar takes a big paradigm shift in order to make it work properly. Which was one of the reasons I suggested moving the responsibility/duties of "Building Scheduler" as currently set forth in the help guidelines of the calendar to the clerks/ex-sec duties.

RussellHltn wrote:The other question is would the functionality of "assign" sound too much like "reservation" and still cause people to use that function instead of creating a event? The whole reason we want to change the language is to get people to understand the usage properly. It seems to me that "restriction" is 180 degrees from "reservation" so it is more likely to cause re-thinking among the existing "building schedulers".

I agree that "restriction" is a completely different connotation. I honestly don't care what it becomes as long as it changes! Kind of funny how a well intended reference has caused so much confusion. Hopefully it will get changed soon!