That and the whole confidential reports issue seem to be the big problems. There have been a fair number of updates to MLS in the last year or so. While most things have gone well, there always seems to be something in each release that generates a rush of semi-panic phone calls from ward clerks. That wouldn't be too bad except that some ward clerks that are no longer in my stake still have my number and call too. I help them and ask them to share the information with their stake clerk. MLS works reasonably well, a moratorium on updates for 6 months to a year wouldn't hurt any ecclesiastical functions.
There are other issues that I'd really like to see get addressed on the back end databases. The biggest issue is communication of information about new units between DB systems. Since our new stake was formed six months ago, I've had several opportunities to interact with various help desk teams. Each time, if it is a functional area that we have not called before, they do not have information in their data about the existence of our stake. It doesn't matter what functional area I'm dealing with, the first time that I call, the conversation always has this element.
Help Desk: What did you say your stake unit number was again?
me: It's XXXXXX, we were formed on 2/17/08.
Help Desk: Hmm. I can't find your stake in our system. Can I put you on hold for a minute?
Eventually, we get things worked out, but this same conversation has been happening from March to two weeks ago. Could we get better back end communication in place and then start refining the front end again?
Alan_Brown wrote:The only change that I can see as being somewhat related to the "security model" is that MLS now requires MLS users to be associated with a member record (except for out-of-unit administrators). Is this what you are referring to, or is it something else?