MLS 2.9 Installation Problems

Discussions around using and interfacing with the Church MLS program.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26184
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:38 pm

rpyne wrote:There is no real reason that the Ward or Stake Clerk should not be able to access this report since they are already privy to any information that would result in a confidential notation on a membership record. Remember that according to CHI and the Report of Disciplinary Action forms, the Ward or Stake Clerk is required to take minutes of any Disciplinary Council and is responsible for completing and signing the report.


In the case of a member moving in with the notation, they see it (or should see it) when they review the record at move-in. However that's only seen when printing or print previewing the record.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

pete_arnett-p40
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:54 am
Location: Sunny South Florida, USA

Bishop received an 'Error' in MLS 2.9 Confidential Member Part 2

Postby pete_arnett-p40 » Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:12 pm

pete_arnett wrote: mkmurray - thanks for doing the test

Russell - thanks for the suggestion about doing a Unit Refresh

Note: we upgraded on Sat a.m., 09Aug2008, and have done several send/receive and check fo r software updates


Called MLS headquarters support because it is still failing:
1) did the get New membership record file from headquarters
2) automatically was updated to MLS 2.9.0-14316 and restarted MLS
3) still get the same error
4) Java messages
E] {Fri 2008-08-22 15:39:50} org.lds.ics.mls.modCF.shell.ModCFActions$7:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 1
at org.lds.ics.mls.modCF.reports.ConfMemberInfoReport.generateConfRecords(Unknown Source)
(.. got about another 34 unknown source error message)
5) headquarters set the trigger to get a copy of our ward's MLS for the programmers to review
:cool: Your Fellow Servant,
Porter (Pete) Lee Arnett Jr.
USA

james_francisco
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Postby james_francisco » Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:04 pm

Coming back to this after a busy couple of weeks: In Stake technology specialist roles and responsibilities at Clerk.Lds.org it says:

"You ensure that all computers, software, and confidential Church information are secure, are protected from viruses and improper use, and that data files are backed up regularly."

This tells me that I am personally accountable for system security of the computers in the buildings that I am responsible for supporting.

RussellHltn wrote:I disagree. If that were the case, then the Desktop would have shipped that way and/or the instructions modified appropriately. It's really not that complicated to do.

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 8578
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:40 pm

James_Francisco wrote:This tells me that I am personally accountable for system security of the computers in the buildings that I am responsible for supporting.


I agree, except that I have come to accept that I am only responsible with the tools CHQ gives me to use. In other words, there are things I might do if I were actually running the show (such as not having everyone login with the same admin account on the desktop).

But I am fine with following the security instructions from SL, and then having them fix the problems those instructions create. They don't like that last part, but I hold them to it, and they do make changes from time to time.

There is nothing quite as liberating as reminding the help desk that I did exactly what they told me to do. (It gets you to the next level of support faster, too.)

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26184
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:19 pm

James_Francisco wrote:Coming back to this after a busy couple of weeks: In Stake technology specialist roles and responsibilities at Clerk.Lds.org it says:

"You ensure that all computers, software, and confidential Church information are secure, are protected from viruses and improper use, and that data files are backed up regularly."

This tells me that I am personally accountable for system security of the computers in the buildings that I am responsible for supporting.


And so you're saying that requires you to disregard clear written instructions quoted in Post #7?

I fail to see how you can be held personally accountable if you've followed all instructions faithfully and haven't ignored any clues that things are not working right.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

james_francisco
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Postby james_francisco » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:38 pm

Perhaps we're getting off track here. A discussion of the scope and limitations of the duties of a Stake Technology Specialist probably belongs somewhere else. The buzz in these forums is that MLS 2.9 has a security model that is quite different from what local leaders are used to dealing with. If that is the case, as the STS for a stake that has not yet been introduced to the new security model, I'd like to see some concise help files that I can share with the usual suspects in the stake to prepare them for the new regime.

RussellHltn wrote:And so you're saying...

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15097
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:50 pm

James_Francisco wrote:The buzz in these forums is that MLS 2.9 has a security model that is quite different from what local leaders are used to dealing with. If that is the case, as the STS for a stake that has not yet been introduced to the new security model, I'd like to see some concise help files that I can share with the usual suspects in the stake to prepare them for the new regime.


I guess I'm missing the "buzz." I haven't seen anything about a change in the MLS security model introduced with version 2.9.

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?

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 8578
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:52 pm

James_Francisco wrote:The buzz in these forums is that MLS 2.9 has a security model that is quite different from what local leaders are used to dealing with.


Not really. MLS has always allowed a user to attach him/herself to a membership record. What has changed with MLS 2.9 is that

(1) each user must be attached to a membership record. This was possible before but not required.

(2) there is a limit of two users who do not need to be attached to a membership record. This allows two out of unit individuals to have logins, a 100% increase from the original plan to allow only one stake administrator -- they did listen to us at the end of the beta test.

(3) if you do not attach every user to a membership record or make them one of the two out of unit individuals, you will get an Urgent Task notice every time you login in to MLS until you do.

So, in reality, you don't have to change anything, if you don't mind clicking off the Urgent Task box on every login. [grin]

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26184
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:27 pm

James_Francisco wrote:[size=84]Perhaps we're getting off track here. A discussion of the scope and limitations of the duties of a Stake Technology Specialist probably belongs somewhere else.


Valid point. Our discussion no longer fits the title of the thread. That's an easy to fix. I'll take care of it tonight of no one beats me to it. (And they're welcome to save me the trouble. :D)

James_Francisco wrote:[ The buzz in these forums is that MLS 2.9 has a security model that is quite different from what local leaders are used to dealing with.


Maybe the security for MLS logins, but I've not heard any change on how Windows security is to be managed. And that's what we're discussing here.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

james_francisco
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Postby james_francisco » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

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?


Return to “MLS Support, Help, and Feedback”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests