Send Stake Geo codes from Stake to Wards

Discussions around using and interfacing with the Church MLS program.
crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Send Stake Geo codes from Stake to Wards

Postby crislapi » Mon May 17, 2010 12:23 pm

We have received approval to form a new unit in our stake based on one of the models we created in the Stake MLS. To do this, I put a lot of time and effort into entering Stake Geo codes for the affected members. Now that it has been approved, it is up to the wards to now move the households to the corresponding wards.

It seems like it would make the process significantly easier if I could now send the geo codes I entered down to the wards so that they could sort their membership based on the geo codes, hopefully making the moving out process easier.

Currently, stake geo codes do not populate to the wards (see here). That makes sense, as that allows me to work on the proposal without the wards being tipped off. However, now that it is approved, it would make sense for them to have that info.

I'd like to add this as suggestion to the MLS Wiki but it must first be discussed here. Any other thoughts from other people?

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon May 17, 2010 12:29 pm

Any suggestions on how it should be implemented? It appears there's valid reasons for both ways.

Perhaps a public/private setting for the stake codes?
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

jonesrk
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:12 am
Location: Farmington, UT, USA

Postby jonesrk » Mon May 17, 2010 12:37 pm

How about a button/link that lets you send a specific geo code to a ward as a one time event. That way the stake is in complete control of which geo codes go to wards and when.
Ryan Jones
CDOL Developer
Stake Technology Specialist - Software / Stake Assistant Clerk
Former Ward Clerk

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon May 17, 2010 12:46 pm

ryan jones wrote:How about a button/link that lets you send a specific geo code to a ward as a one time event.


One ward or all wards? "All wards" would keep the user interface simpler if there's no real case for selected wards.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Mon May 17, 2010 12:54 pm

RussellHltn wrote:One ward or all wards? "All wards" would keep the user interface simpler if there's no real case for selected wards.


I would think all wards. I guess it depends how crazy you go with the stake geo codes, but by default the Stake shows the same as what the ward already shows. So when I send them down to all wards, only those I changed will appear different to the ward, which is the point.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Mon May 17, 2010 12:57 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Any suggestions on how it should be implemented? It appears there's valid reasons for both ways.

Perhaps a public/private setting for the stake codes?


I guess I envision a "send stake geo codes to wards" button on the buttom. Something similar to the quarterly report "submit" button. I can work on the quarterly report as much as I want but it doesn't get submitted until I click on the submit button. I would expect some different checks than the quarterly report (by default it should never queue up a transmit of stake geo codes to the wards automatically) but same sort of functionality.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14690
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Mon May 17, 2010 1:06 pm

crislapi wrote:It seems like it would make the process significantly easier if I could now send the geo codes I entered down to the wards so that they could sort their membership based on the geo codes, hopefully making the moving out process easier.


The stake should be sending precise lists of which members are to be moved into each ward. That seems like the reliable way to make sure the right households are moved, not depending on Geo codes. Those lists can be generated, by the way, from Stake MLS under Boundary Proposals > Statistics > Households (for each of the new proposed wards -- probably sorted by Ward).

Given a list that is sorted by last name, it seems like it is pretty easy for the wards to move out the right people. They just go to Membership Records > Boundary Realignment. Then they move down through the list of households and check off each family that is moving to a particular new ward.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a bit easier if stake Geo codes were available to facilitate selection, but it's a very minor improvement. This last part of the process is pretty easy. Besides, I think it is good to check each name carefully, and doing bulk selections by using Geo codes might make it easier to make mistakes.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Mon May 17, 2010 1:31 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:The stake should be sending precise lists of which members are to be moved into each ward. That seems like the reliable way to make sure the right households are moved, not depending on Geo codes.


Yes, but then you are overlooking how those lists are created in the first place. They are coming straight from the Stake Geo codes used to create the proposal, so this list is no more accurate than using Geo Codes. And doing it this way requires converting something electronic to paper and then having the ward "reenter" it electronically. Why not just keep it all in MLS to begin with?

Alan_Brown wrote:Given a list that is sorted by last name, it seems like it is pretty easy for the wards to move out the right people. They just go to Membership Records > Boundary Realignment. Then they move down through the list of households and check off each family that is moving to a particular new ward.


You would still have to check which names would get moved out one by one. Having the geo codes could potentially help avoid transcription errors resulting from reading names off a list.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14690
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Mon May 17, 2010 2:13 pm

crislapi wrote:Yes, but then you are overlooking how those lists are created in the first place. They are coming straight from the Stake Geo codes used to create the proposal, so this list is no more accurate than using Geo Codes.


No, I didn't overlook that -- I'm very familiar with how the process works. But remember that ward membership is dynamic. Reviewing proposals is done at a certain point in time, based on the information you have then, but people will move in and out during this process (which often takes several months). Whether you are working with Geo codes or lists of names, you still have to take care that you are reviewing each individual household at the time of the move.

crislapi wrote:And doing it this way requires converting something electronic to paper and then having the ward "reenter" it electronically. Why not just keep it all in MLS to begin with?


Now you are proposing something quite beyond what you originally proposed. There is no feature for communicating electronically which Geo codes are associated with which proposed new ward model. There is also no feature for using Geo codes in the selection process for who gets moved where.

But I like the idea of keeping it all in MLS. That would indeed reduce risk of error. It would require several new features, or perhaps letting the stake transmit the changes directly. Of course that last option would completely eliminate the need for transmitting stake Geo codes to the wards, but it would be the ultimate in reducing any communication or transcription errors.

crislapi wrote:You would still have to check which names would get moved out one by one. Having the geo codes could potentially help avoid transcription errors resulting from reading names off a list.


That's true. Your proposal would still require accurate reading of Geo codes from a list to select the correct Geo codes, but since there are fewer groups of Geo codes than households, the risk of error would be significantly less.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon May 17, 2010 3:18 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:or perhaps letting the stake transmit the changes directly. Of course that last option would completely eliminate the need for transmitting stake Geo codes to the wards, but it would be the ultimate in reducing any communication or transcription errors.


What about the issue of the stake having up-to-date information on the members? While I like the idea from an operational level, it seems to open the door to more computer-created problems.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.


Return to “MLS Support, Help, and Feedback”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest