Wards Sharing a single Calendar

[jrennaker]

In our Stake, 2 of our wards have combined scouting and quorum activities. Is it possible to have a shared calendar and be able to be maintained by both wards? Currently only one ward can maintain however the activities show on the building calendar for scheduled events.

[aebrown]

In our Stake, 2 of our wards have combined scouting and quorum activities. Is it possible to have a shared calendar and be able to be maintained by both wards? Currently only one ward can maintain however the activities show on the building calendar for scheduled events.

The simplest approach is to have the stake create a stake calendar for you, then add editors from both wards to that calendar.

[russellhltn]

The simplest approach is to have the stake create a stake calendar for you, then add editors from both wards to that calendar.

That works, but I think it has the downside of having that calendar appear by default on everyone's calendar in the whole stake. The only other choice I see is to have each ward update their own calendar, but only one can "reserve" the building. The other will have to use "Other" location.

There's no great solution, only ones with different problems.

[tdinkel]

I agree that this is a problem and that the Stake Calendar option is not a good one as we would be polluting the calendars for the other 10 units in our Stake, forcing members of the other units to opt out of these calendars.

With approval from the Pres. of the 70, we will be starting to meet together with the other ward which shares our building for the Sunday School / PH&RS blocks, while maintaining seperate Sacrament meetings as well as organization presidencies and lines of authority.

As such, we will have the need to have common calendars for many of the common auxiliaries so that all members of each ward can view the details of the common events, without having to maintain two calendars for each organization.

Is there still no good solution to this situation?

[aebrown]

I agree that this is a problem and that the Stake Calendar option is not a good one as we would be polluting the calendars for the other 10 units in our Stake, forcing members of the other units to opt out of these calendars.

It may not be an ideal solution, but it is the best one available at this point. Members just need to get used to unsubscribing from calendars that are not relevant to them.

I don't see how it is practical for stakes to be nervous about creating calendars that are not relevant to all members. We have a stake youth calendar that lots of empty nesters don't care about -- we still have that calendar. I could list several other examples. A stake calendar shared among a limited set of wards is no different. If members don't like it, they should unsubscribe. It would probably be helpful for such a stake to make extra educational efforts to make sure members understand the situation and how to unsubscribe.

So although I'm sympathetic to your thought that there could be a better solution, for now you just need to use the best solution available to you now.

[AileneRHerrick]

Is it possible to have a shared calendar and be able to be maintained by [more than one ward]?

I would like to see this feature eventually too. We also have shared scouting activities, as well as some provident living activities where adults of both of the wards in our building are involved.

The concerns I would have about adding it as a Stake Calendar:
--Less flexibility when adding editors. In the Ward Calendar, you would add by callings in the ward, and when the callings change, so would administrative rights. You'd have to change individuals every time they were called to a position in which they should have calendar access. My understanding is that the only "callings" you can add by in a Stake Calendar are Stake callings. I may be wrong on that.
--Confusion about who the calendar applies too. Even though people can unsubscribe from the calendar, I can see confusing arising about how it is not truly a "stake" calendar.
--I'm guessing (but I could be stretching) that there also may be some privacy concerns about having information about scouting or youth activity information viewable to everyone in the stake outside of those wards.

The last one could be a stretch, but I think the first two items should be considered.

[aebrown]

--Less flexibility when adding editors. In the Ward Calendar, you would add by callings in the ward, and when the callings change, so would administrative rights. You'd have to change individuals every time they were called to a position in which they should have calendar access. My understanding is that the only "callings" you can add by in a Stake Calendar are Stake callings. I may be wrong on that.

That's definitely a good point, and the strongest argument for creating a separate feature for calendar sharing at the ward level. Having to add people by name is certainly a maintenance hassle.

--Confusion about who the calendar applies too. Even though people can unsubscribe from the calendar, I can see confusing arising about how it is not truly a "stake" calendar.

This is pretty easily handled just by a decent naming scheme. If you share a Cub Scouts calendar between the Mountain Dell Ward and the River View Ward, then call it MD/RV Cub Scouts. That makes it pretty obvious the calendar doesn't apply to the whole stake.

--I'm guessing (but I could be stretching) that there also may be some privacy concerns about having information about scouting or youth activity information viewable to everyone in the stake outside of those wards.

There are ways for everyone in the stake to see any event that takes place at any building in the stake (in Week view, check the box by the building under Available Locations), so I don't see how this makes any significant difference in terms of privacy.

[AileneRHerrick]

If you share a Cub Scouts calendar between the Mountain Dell Ward and the River View Ward, then call it MD/RV Cub Scouts. That makes it pretty obvious the calendar doesn't apply to the whole stake.

Good idea.

There are ways for everyone in the stake to see any event that takes place at any building in the stake (in Week view, check the box by the building under Available Locations), so I don't see how this makes any significant difference in terms of privacy.

Funny, I never noticed that before. I knew I might be stretching with that point.

Thanks!