Home Teaching / Visiting Teaching Application

When the Church has need of help from the technology community, we will post that need in this forum.
scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:37 pm

I see your passionate response as indicative of your desire to see this project through. It is something that would be a benefit to many. You have invested significant time and skills to accomplish what you did in R&R. These issues shouldn't be turned into a question of your faith.

User avatar
daddy-o-p40
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby daddy-o-p40 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:45 pm

mkmurray wrote:No, it doesn't make me wonder about the management of the project. And honestly, I can't stand to read these ignorant statements anymore (from more than just you daddy-o).

As I have stated several times now in this very thread, it is the spiritual leadership of the Church that have chosen the requirements as they stand. It is not some temporal Church employee who thinks they just know better than you. This is not RaR anymore, it is a website duplication of HT/VT functionality as it current exists in MLS.

I will not tolerate any more of this kind of talk about priesthood leadership of the Church. Cease this at once or the thread will be locked permanently.


Mkmurray,

There's a lot of frustration about this. Remember that many of us who participate in the forum right now are struggling to keep a roof over our heads and are not privy to all the inside information that you seem to have.

In fact, much of the angst we are seeing is because of the lack of teaching through communication that is NOT going on here. If members of this forum are to help build solutions then give us the info about the decisions, boundaries and framework to help us succeed instead of going down in flames.

Not once have I ever questioned priesthood leadership in my entire life. With that said if priesthood leaders are involved then I am grateful you are telling us so.

Let's just hope that they see the value in sharing, teaching, and communicating so we can move the Lords work forward in unison.
"What have I done for someone today?" Thomas Monson

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:52 pm

daddy-o wrote:Mkmurray,

There's a lot of frustration about this. Remember that many of us who participate in the forum right now are struggling to keep a roof over our heads and are not privy to all the inside information that you seem to have.

In fact, much of the angst we are seeing is because of the lack of teaching through communication that is NOT going on here. If members of this forum are to help build solutions then give us the info about the decisions, boundaries and framework to help us succeed instead of going down in flames.
Jumping into the fray...

I have just now bothered to read the wiki page. And to be honest, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Included in the core functions of the proposed application is the ability of the administrators (and I take that to mean EQ pres, RS Pres, and HPGL) to record visits.

With the push in MLS 3.0 to standardize callings to provide future functionality via Web applications, it seems obvious to me that the EQ pres should potentially be able to login to the Web (probably a future version of LUWS) and do all necessary maintenance and recording of visits. It does not seem too much of a stretch that those listed as HT/VT supervisors in MLS might also likely gain the ability to record visits via the Web. The benefit being that they wouldn't have to be at the ward's MLS computer to do this; they could do it from home via the Web.

With that kind of functionality built-in from the start, it seems it is mostly a matter of policy decision whether to allow a home/visiting teacher to report directly. If MLS does not currently allow this, why should LUWS? (And yes that is a rhetorical question.)

Cutting the EQ pres or HT supervisor out of the loop technologically by allowing direct reporting removes a layer of accountability. Regardless of whether it CAN be done, it has not yet been decided that it SHOULD be done, regardless of the benefits its proponents might see or be able to demonstrate.

If you are actually part of that community development team (I am not, and I don't know whether you are or not), or if you want to volunteer to help with it, then TomW stated where those discussions belong in the initial post to this thread.
tomw wrote:If you have not yet, log in to the Technology Wiki (https://tech.lds.org/wiki) and follow the link to the Home Teaching / Visiting Teaching article. This wiki page will be where you can collaborate on the design and specifications as well as where you can find out how to get involved.


I had no difficulty following those links and locating the "discussion" tab on the wiki page. Since the project is still in development, THAT is the place where "teaching through communication" and "info about the decisions, boundaries and framework to help us succeed" will be appropriately found. This thread or forum is not the place for that discussion, but instead serves as a call to direct those interested and able to do so to contribute to the project.

For the record, I am not part of any HT/VT product development team, because I lack any useful coding abilities.

One of the things RaR did was provide proof-of-concept (for which it was rightly lauded). But even though the Church may have lauded that concept and the extensive effort that went into it, that does not obligate the Church to adopt that concept at the expense of its own needs and objectives, however well that concept might have been proven. RaR solved certain problems, and solved them rather effectively and efficiently. However, it also introduced other problems, none of which are technical in nature but are more philosophical instead. I can only speculate what those problems are as the Church sees them, but I think it is safe to say that they have not been thoroughly explored by anyone yet, and are probably still being identified. Until those philosophical issues are sorted out (by those with the keys to do so), the objective has been defined as essentially porting the current MLS HT/VT functionality to the Web.

Line upon line, precept on precept, here a little and there a little.

---
When you get a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26192
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:33 pm

jbh001 wrote:With that kind of functionality built-in from the start, it seems it is mostly a matter of policy decision whether to allow a home/visiting teacher to report directly.


I look at it a bit differently. That core has to exist before a HT/VT can report directly. The direct reporting may have been taken out just to simplify the first round. Perhaps if the first round had been called something like "V0.5" it would have been a non-issue.
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.

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:05 pm

jbh001 wrote:One of the things RaR did was provide proof-of-concept (for which it was rightly lauded). But even though the Church may have lauded that concept and the extensive effort that went into it, that does not obligate the Church to adopt that concept at the expense of its own needs and objectives, however well that concept might have been proven. RaR solved certain problems, and solved them rather effectively and efficiently. However, it also introduced other problems, none of which are technical in nature but are more philosophical instead. I can only speculate what those problems are as the Church sees them, but I think it is safe to say that they have not been thoroughly explored by anyone yet, and are probably still being identified. Until those philosophical issues are sorted out (by those with the keys to do so), the objective has been defined as essentially porting the current MLS HT/VT functionality to the Web.


Of course the Church isn't obligated to use anything we do as a community. However, for the longest time, we were under the impression that the Church was onboard with the idea of reporting online. All of a sudden, the rug was pulled out from under us. Now the fundamental concept behind the whole project is in question.

I get paid to deal with this kind of ambiguity at work regularly and I do a pretty good job at it. However, dealing with this kind of stuff on a volunteer basis just doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation of anyone.

I dropped out as a contributor long ago because my plate is overloaded as it is. However, I still want to see this project (reporting online) succeed and I certainly want to see it happen sooner than later.

Brad O.

User avatar
daddy-o-p40
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby daddy-o-p40 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:26 pm

jbh001,

Glad you checked out the wiki. Let me clarify some false assumptions that seem to exist.

Status updates during the course of the month are not a replacement for stewardship interviews. It just helps the RS, EQ and HP leaders to see where they need to help out earlier in the month and improves the success of the visits.

The supervisors are not cut off instead they now become a more integral part of the success of their teachers by knowing early in the month who might need help completing their visits.

Now if the leaders are clever enough to have the supervisors assigned to home teach the people they supervise then the stewardship interviews will happy each month too. This helps keep the focus where it needs to be and yields amazing successes.

These are just a few of the distinctions which got lost along the way.
"What have I done for someone today?" Thomas Monson

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:53 pm

Brad O. wrote: However, for the longest time, we were under the impression that the Church was onboard with the idea of reporting online.
I still read the relevant wiki page as supporting that. Specifically that the EQ Pres or HT supervisors can record that reporting online. The philosophical issues raised by allowing individual home/visiting teachers to report online have still not been approved. The potential philosophical problems introduced by such direct reporting might never be overcome. But reporting a HT/VT visit by an "admin" online, is still reporting online, even if that is drastically less than the original functionality of RaR. Thus far the Church seems to have identified the concepts of RaR that fit its current objectives. Apparently that means that core functions of RaR have been found not to mesh with the Church's objectives and priorities.

To be blunt:

You did it your way, and did it superbly.

The Church provided recognition of your abilities and extensive effort even if the end product did not meet its needs.

Now the Church has asked for those with the technical know-how to help them do it their way.

Your capability to provide the technical expertise needed has not changed (even if your availability has).

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:59 pm

daddy-o wrote:Status updates during the course of the month are not a replacement for stewardship interviews.
But it nevertheless opens a potential crack where they can become such a replacement.

Again this thread was meant to call for collaboration via the wiki, not debate the philosophical merits or pitfalls of a given feature set.

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:39 pm

jbh001 wrote:I still read the relevant wiki page as supporting that. Specifically that the EQ Pres or HT supervisors can record that reporting online. The philosophical issues raised by allowing individual home/visiting teachers to report online have still not been approved. The potential philosophical problems introduced by such direct reporting might never be overcome. But reporting a HT/VT visit by an "admin" online, is still reporting online, even if that is drastically less than the original functionality of RaR. Thus far the Church seems to have identified the concepts of RaR that fit its current objectives. Apparently that means that core functions of RaR have been found not to mesh with the Church's objectives and priorities.

To be blunt:

You did it your way, and did it superbly.

The Church provided recognition of your abilities and extensive effort even if the end product did not meet its needs.

Now the Church has asked for those with the technical know-how to help them do it their way.

Your capability to provide the technical expertise needed has not changed (even if your availability has).


Listen, this is accomplishing nothing but getting me riled up again... I could go on and on regarding the above comments, but I'm going to go against my personality characteristics and just shut up now.

TechnoBabel-p40
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:14 am

Postby TechnoBabel-p40 » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:25 am

I find Brad's perseverance on this amazing. I certainly don't blame him for not being in the best of moods right now.


Return to “Development Help Wanted”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest