Calendar reservation problems

All Calendars totally distorted, not able to make entries...Washington D.C. Stake

There are 2 issues to be aware of both addressed in multiple recent threads on this forum, and both are being looked at allready -
If you are using IE8 and below, the display is messed up. If you can upgrade to IE9, or load another browser like Chrome or Firefox, you shouldn't have any display issues.
Getting to Reservation details is currently an issue. You can add reservations from the pop-up, but going to details or editing existing reservations is unavailable presently. Last word from some of the developers is that this issue should be fixed "soon"

I'm not able to make or edit reservations!
And having same problem on FireFox and different computer (laptop).
Is this a known bug; if so when will it be fixed? I have several reservations pending...

Thank You
Clark

This is a known problem. The developers are working on it, but have not given us a date.

Note: Header info should be sent via email or PM only. I've removed the header info from your post as this is a public forum.

What is the Calendar Reservation support email address?

When updates are made do they not test it before release to make sure thisdoes not happen?

It leaves us schedulers in an awkward position when we have a handful ofreservation requests and we are totally relying on the online reservationcalendar. This leaves us dead in the water. The programer or team responsible should turn thisaround within 24 hours… don’t you think?

In this case I don't think it's needed. No one can add or edit reservations. The header is useful when it's a problem unique to certain individuals.

For the most part I don't see much need in reservations anyway. All a reservation does, is block out a period of time/resources/area so that only a specific unit can schedule events at that time. The only time I see it being useful is to block out specific days where a unit is assigned to use the building on a repeating basis (such as YM/YW nights), so that other units, in the building, cannot schedule events on those days.

Other than that all one has to do is place an event on the proper calendar which blocks out the time/resources/area for that event. No one in any unit can schedule over over top of that event using the resources/areas associated with the event. They may however schedule an event at the same time using another resource/area in the building.

Who ever designed the new calendar and how its to works was brilliant in that it makes the scheduling of events in a building easier and places the capability to do so at the organization level, instead of having to call someone to schedule an event and the area of the building needed for the event. The calendar team is to be commended.

clarkentparker wrote:What is the Calendar Reservation support email address?

This forum is the place to report calendar problems. The development team is active here. In the particular case of the problem you're reporting, it has been noted in this thread, and you can also see specifically in this post, that the problem is known and being worked on. So any further contact with the support team would be redundant.

Gary_Miller wrote:All a reservation does, is block out a period of time/resources/area so that only a specific unit can schedule events at that time. The only time I see it being useful is to block out specific days where a unit is assigned to use the building on a repeating basis (such as YM/YW nights), so that other units, in the building, cannot schedule events on those days.

That's exactly the situation that reservations were created for. They can also be useful during calendar planning "season" - reserve the building for the stake for the whole year to allow the stake organizations to place their events first. Then remove the reservation to allow the wards to place their events.

But any attempt to use reservations as a substitute for events is likely to lead to problems including double-booking.

RussellHltn wrote:But any attempt to use reservations as a substitute for events is likely to lead to problems including double-booking.

This is the problem I'm currently seeing in my stake. There are called building schedulers who don't seem to understand their role and are using the reservation system to book events. I don't see double-booking, however I'm seeing reservations blocking out a period of time but no event to place it on any calendar. When this happens the only time you can see there is anything taking place in a specific building is in the week mode.

I think most of problem is due to a lack of understanding of how the new calendar works. There is a need to educate everyone on the different roles and processes evolved in using the new calendar. Of course all this can be done by reading the help information. It just seems to be not happening.

Gary_Miller wrote:This is the problem I'm currently seeing in my stake. There are called building schedulers who don't seem to understand their role and are using the reservation system to book events. I don't see double-booking, however I'm seeing reservations blocking out a period of time but no event to place it on any calendar. When this happens the only time you can see there is anything taking place in a specific building is in the week mode.

The double booking risk comes when (for example) a building scheduler creates a reservation for the cultural hall for the Meadow Ward because the Primary president requested it for September 18 at 7:00pm. Then a calendar editor or administrator from the Meadow Ward creates an event that books the cultural hall for a Young Women event at that same time. That event can be safely saved because it is done by someone from the ward for whom the reservation was made. But neither the Primary president nor the YW president is going to be happy on that day, since they both think they have properly scheduled the building.

There are many variations to this possibility; for instance, the building scheduler may create a reservation on top of an existing event. But this just shows that the only reliable way to book a building is to create an event. Reservations are not a reliable way to book the building.

But this just shows that the only reliable way to book a building is to create an event. Reservations are not a reliable way to book the building.

Although I don't disagree with this statement, I do have to say that my stake is trying very hard to disprove it... For one reason or another, not completely known to me, our stake has disallowed scheduling on all the buildings/recreation property in our stake (unchecked This location can be scheduled by Wards and Stakes option on all the locations.) The desire was to have all building scheduling coordinated through the couple who have been called as the stake building schedulers. This has effectively made Reservations, the only way to "book" a specific building and rooms. This basically works since there is only one married couple doing all the reservations (though a couple of High Council members and now myself as a stake website administrator have also been added as schedulers) As you can imagine, this current new bug has put a damper on their ability to schedule buildings for stake members who email/call them to request it.

I hope to change all this in the next few weeks/months as we have just had a new stake presidency called, and I think it shouldn't be difficult to help them see how much easier this could be and that we're doing it all wrong.

Maybe some of you can help answer a question that occurred to me though... for a "regular Joe member" who isn't a calendar editor for any calendars in the ward or stake, it makes sense to have someone in the ward or stake called as a building scheduler whom they can call to schedule the building for them if they are requesting it for something like a wedding or family gathering. But when that happens, on what calendar to the building schedulers place the event? This question occurs to me because in the process of troubleshooting the reservation issue with our stake building schedulers, I discovered that they are not calendar editors for any calendars in their ward or in the stake. My impression/understanding is that if scheduling was turned on for all the locations, by virtue of being a scheduler for a building, they can edit any event that was scheduled for that building, but that doesn't give them specific calendar rights, so can they add new events, and what calendar do they add them to?

I tried going to the beta version of the calendar to test that out myself, but I had 2 problems with that - the Beta version seems to be having issues (taking forever to load buttons like the add event button and never seems to get to where the calendars load for me, so even after I add an event with the add event button, I can't see it on the calendar since it never loads) and besides that, I'm both stake and ward website administrator by calling so I can put events on nearly all calendars. Probably would have to test with my wife's login to make that work for me, if I could get the beta to load.

failproof wrote:Maybe some of you can help answer a question that occurred to me though... for a "regular Joe member" who isn't a calendar editor for any calendars in the ward or stake, it makes sense to have someone in the ward or stake called as a building scheduler whom they can call to schedule the building for them if they are requesting it for something like a wedding or family gathering. But when that happens, on what calendar to the building schedulers place the event?

There are two terms that drive me crazy with the new calendar system because they are so misleading. The first is "reservation", which is not a reservation at all, but rather is a way to restrict event creation to be available only to a particular ward or stake. The second is "building scheduler", who is really not a scheduler, but sets up "reservations" and resolves conflicts. In fact, the "building scheduler" has no ability to create events at all, unless additional calendar editor or administrator rights are given to him or her.

With that little venting out of the way (but it is relevant on both counts), I think what you want (once you've convinced your stake presidency to use the calendar system the way it is intended) is not a person who has the "building scheduler" role, but rather someone in each ward who has the ability and assignment to schedule events (not just reservations). It has nothing to do with the building and everything to do with calendars, so it really shouldn't be a "building scheduler." A calendar editor or administrator can add events to any building in the stake. Someone in the ward will be better known and more accessible to ward members than a "building scheduler" in one of the other wards in the building. In our stake, we call that person the "calendar coordinator," but there continues to be confusion about what a "building scheduler" does.

As for what calendar to put weddings and family gatherings on, many wards and stakes create a calendar called "Resource Only" or "Family Events" or something like that. The title hopefully will lead most people not to subscribe to it, but it's a place to put all these odds and ends that aren't on the normal set of calendars that most members do subscribe to.

failproof wrote:Maybe some of you can help answer a question that occurred to me though... for a "regular Joe member" who isn't a calendar editor for any calendars in the ward or stake, it makes sense to have someone in the ward or stake called as a building scheduler whom they can call to schedule the building for them if they are requesting it for something like a wedding or family gathering. But when that happens, on what calendar to the building schedulers place the event?

The answer depends on the procedures that your stake sets up for "family functions" using church buildings. In our stake we have a form they need to fill out the explains the rules (no smoking or drinking - if non-members will be present, "no smoking" signs must be posted, etc.) Because of that, our stake does have someone they want all the families to work though. In our stake, that's the Stake Executive Secretary, but I don't know of any reason why it needs to be that person.

Also in our stake, we have a "Private Events" calendar where we place those types of events. To prevent confusion, we've made it a private calendar so it won't show up in member's subscriptions.

I know it hard for us guys to sometimes read the instructions. But why not follow the guidlines in the help section of the calendar.

"If you're not a calendar editor but still need to publish an event, contact the appropriate calendar editor with the request. If your event doesn't fit on any specific calendar (such as a funeral or wedding), contact your ward clerk or building scheduler with the request. The event can be added to a general ward calendar." (Calendar helps, Scheduling Events, 1st page, 2nd paragraph)

We just made a calendar titled, "Family Events Reservations" any of the default administers can add events to the calendar. Its a public calendar and the description says. "For private family events such as reunions, wedding, funerals, ect.)

RussellHltn wrote:The answer depends on the procedures that your stake sets up for "family functions" using church buildings. In our stake we have a form they need to fill out the explains the rules (no smoking or drinking - if non-members will be present, "no smoking" signs must be posted, etc.) Because of that, our stake does have someone they want all the families to work though. In our stake, that's the Stake Executive Secretary, but I don't know of any reason why it needs to be that person.

I hope I never live in a stake where the stake leadership is so dictatorial on how things as simple as scheduling events on a calendar is to be done. Or where we have to worry about such details just because no-member are present we have to post such signs.

The purpose of the new calendar system is to be able to schedule events at the lowest level, that would be the ward organization level. There is no reason to have anyone at the stake level schedule any event that can be easily handled at the ward level. That includes "Private Events".

I cannot make reservations, and also when I clicked help, the error message indicates file not found.

Please work on restoring the calendar system.

If your using IE-8 its not working.

I had to switch to Google Chrome and I have not had any problems.

This is a really interesting thread. I wanted to leave a quick comment to let you know we're hearing your concerns.

Re reservations not working, I think integration of the new lds.org header corrupted that functionality. I know it's been fixed in a test environment, and I thought it was going to be pushed out late last week, but something may have held it up. I'm sure we'll push out a fix before the general conference period, which introduces a release moratorium period for software updates.

Re reservations functionality being unnecessary, I do think that removing the reservation functionality might reduce some confusion. In my own ward, the building scheduler has been confused by how reservations work. Even when I've explained it, the mentality has been to reject the design. Some team members have discussed possibly renaming "reservations" to "facility holds."

Reservations seems to be one mechanism to enforce scheduling rules. Without any reservations/restrictions/rules, scheduling might be a little too much of a free-for-all. I'd be interested to hear if you majority opinion thinks reservations should be dramatically altered, and if so, how.

Re the term building scheduler, yes, this is problematic. A building scheduler should not be called a "scheduler" if he or she cannot schedule anything. We've discussed this before but nothing came out of it. The problem is that stakes use "building scheduler" ubiquitously, so the term is hard to change (for example, to something like building coordinator). Any suggestions there? Give building schedulers rights to schedule anything on any calendar? At this point, it seems that the line between a building scheduler and an administrator becomes blurry and not worth distinguishing the two roles with separate names.

I'll make a note of these three issues and bring them up to the team later. I know the team is working on a 3.0 version that might hopefully address some of these larger issues.

Gary_Miller wrote:I hope I never live in a stake where the stake leadership is so dictatorial on how things as simple as scheduling events on a calendar is to be done. Or where we have to worry about such details just because no-member are present we have to post such signs.

Note that my comments were made in the context of a private non-church activity. Conceivably the only member present might be the one who made the request for use of the building.

I personally have a hard time believing that any ward or stake would simply toss the keys to the building to anyone that wants to use it without some kind of discussion or setting expectations on how it would be used and what kind of activities would take place. Our stake may be different only in that we have a formal process for it. While I don't know the details, I'm willing to bet that our process came about because of past experiences.

johnsonth wrote:I'd be interested to hear if you majority opinion thinks reservations should be dramatically altered, and if so, how.

I vote that "reservations" be renamed "restrictions" as discussed in the Reservation terminology thread. Restrictions have a needed function. I believe the problems caused by reservations is caused by the name "reservations" and the resulting mis-application of it's use.

johnsonth wrote:Re the term building scheduler, yes, this is problematic. A building scheduler should not be called a "scheduler" if he or she cannot schedule anything. We've discussed this before but nothing came out of it.

Yes, we talked about it in the How about another name for building scheduler thread.

johnsonth wrote:The problem is that stakes use "building scheduler" ubiquitously, so the term is hard to change (for example, to something like building coordinator). Any suggestions there? Give building schedulers rights to schedule anything on any calendar? At this point, it seems that the line between a building scheduler and an administrator becomes blurry and not worth distinguishing the two roles with separate names.

What better way to announce that there's a new scheduling model then to abolish old terminology?

"Building Scheduler" came from the pre-web days when there was no practical way for more then one person to have a completely up-to-date calendar. I'm not seeing a reason to keep that model except inertia.

If you do grant the building scheduler as a default admin, then we're back to the calendar 1.0 model as the path of least resistance.

But until you allow the "building scheduler" to be able to edit ALL calendars within the stake, they can't function in the old way. Not without double-entry of events into the system (one for the ward to see and one to book the facilities). That would really be a step backwards.

I think your biggest obstacle is people who try to fit the "old way" into the new system without completely reading the manual. The best way to make them think differently is to remove old terminology. If it's not in the Handbook, why keep it?

I'm with Russell in all that was said. We have discussed these issues before. It is unfortunate to see that our concerns back then have been validated by the confusion caused by antiquated and inaccurate terminology. The new system is magnitudes of improvement over the replaced system. It is just the terminology that needs to fit.

Thanks all! Some great suggestions on how set this up so that it will work with my stake. In thinking through these suggestions, and a spark of remembrance from one of the comments

RussellHltn wrote: I personally have a hard time believing that any ward or stake would simply toss the keys to the building to anyone that wants to use it...

One of the reasons why our stake wants to funnel these requests through one person, and likely the same with other stakes, is managing the keys to the building. Since "Joe member" doesn't have keys to get in for a family function, someone has to provide them with a key and keep track of who has it and what for. For this reason, I don't think stakes are going to abandon the concept of a building scheduler/coordinator/keymaster (couldn't help the 80's movie reference that popped into my head)

johnsonth wrote:Re the term building scheduler, yes, this is problematic. A building scheduler should not be called a "scheduler" if he or she cannot schedule anything. We've discussed this before but nothing came out of it. The problem is that stakes use "building scheduler" ubiquitously, so the term is hard to change (for example, to something like building coordinator). Any suggestions there? Give building schedulers rights to schedule anything on any calendar? At this point, it seems that the line between a building scheduler and an administrator becomes blurry and not worth distinguishing the two roles with separate names.

Since this calling/position isn't likely to go away, I like the idea of private calendar(s) created on the stake level, not ward, so that it can be used as needed by individuals from any ward in the stake if desired. And Private so the general membership don't subscribe to them. The solution then seems to be just to give the building scheduler(s) edit permission to the appropriate private stake calendar. I'm assuming that there isn't a standard building scheduler calling, so it would have to be granted by name and not calling. This concept could also be pushed down to a ward level for areas/stakes where scheduling at a stake level doesn't make sense.

As far as terminology for the calendar web pages, regardless of what terms a stake uses for callings and assignments, I think inside the Calendar application/website, that names should be changed to better reflect what they do. I vote for Reservations being called Building Restrictions, and the Building Scheduler concept could either be re-named to a building coordinator, or it could be scrapped all together as a separate function and the Building Restrictions functionality given to stake administrators. Ultimately the direction for which ward has a hold on buildings and rooms on a given day is made at the stake level, and blocks for things like Stake or General Conference will be known first by stake administrators.

Franklin, Idaho Stake
We are also having issues with the reservation calendar, similiar to others. We cannot make new reservations nor edit existing reservations. The calendar just hands up and does not bring up the box to make a new reservation. It also just hangs up when trying to edit a reservation. I assume this issue is still being worked by Church IT?

failproof wrote:...[T]he Building Scheduler concept ... could be scrapped all together as a separate function and the Building Restrictions functionality given to stake administrators.

If a stake wants to manage this aspect of the calendar in this manner they can certainly do that now. All that is required is to assign the building scheduler role to a stake administrator. Making this the only method for every stake in the Church can be burdensome on the stake and gives less flexibility and control of resources to those who use it the most. Who better to manage the conflicts and location restrictions than someone from amongst those who use the resources regularly?

failproof wrote:Ultimately the direction for which ward has a hold on buildings and rooms on a given day is made at the stake level...

This is not true of any stake in which I have been a member for as far back as I can remember. Even under the previous system units using the building had to coordinate with each other to determine scheduling use. The stake only maintained scheduling control of the stake center. Even then the units meeting in the stake center had considerable input into scheduling use.

failproof wrote:...locks for things like Stake or General Conference will be known first by stake administrators.

These are but two events out of many possible reasons for using location restrictions. The various other reasons are better known (and sometimes only known) by those using the building regularly.

failproof wrote:One of the reasons why our stake wants to funnel these requests through one person, and likely the same with other stakes, is managing the keys to the building. Since "Joe member" doesn't have keys to get in for a family function, someone has to provide them with a key and keep track of who has it and what for. For this reason, I don't think stakes are going to abandon the concept of a building scheduler/coordinator/keymaster (couldn't help the 80's movie reference that popped into my head)

You're certainly right that access to keys is an issue with such events, but to my thinking, that's a strong argument for it being handled at the ward level, not the stake level. Members know the person in the ward who handles calendar events; they may not know the building scheduler. And in stakes that cover any significant geographical area, trying to get the keys from a building scheduler to a member of another ward may be a hassle. Keep it at the ward level and everything is simpler.

As RussellHltn said, a stake may want to set the policy for such building use, but that still could be enforced at the ward level. All sorts of stake policies are enforced at the ward level; why does this one have to be any different?

failproof wrote:Ultimately the direction for which ward has a hold on buildings and rooms on a given day is made at the stake level

Not in my stake. A representative from each bishopric for the wards that meet in the building get together and work these things out. The agent bishop is in charge of directing that it gets put in the calendar properly. The stake isn't involved at all. It works great -- the decisions are made by those who are closest to the relevant information, and we don't waste other people's time.

RussellHltn wrote:Note that my comments were made in the context of a private non-church activity. Conceivably the only member present might be the one who made the request for use of the building.

Noted and understood, my comments were along the same lines.

RussellHltn wrote:I personally have a hard time believing that any ward or stake would simply toss the keys to the building to anyone that wants to use it without some kind of discussion or setting expectations on how it would be used and what kind of activities would take place. Our stake may be different only in that we have a formal process for it.

I'm sure the keys are not just tossed to just anyone without them understanding that they need to clean up after themselves and put the areas they use back the way they found the. But for the most part that is a given when it comes to building use. I don't see the need for filling out a paper or posting no smoking sign that just seems over the top to me. After all I didn't have to sign a paper or anything else (with the exception of key accountability) when I was call as clerk on how I would maintain the clerks office or anything else, it was just supposed that I would do the right thing. In our part of the country its call trust.

RussellHltn wrote:While I don't know the details, I'm willing to bet that our process came about because of past experiences.

Or from some paranoid person who did not trust anyone to do the right thing so there were rules established, and everyone suffers.

I guess its different where ever you are due to local conditions and circumstances.

The chapel in Provo, Utah, USA, where my daughter had her wedding reception we were not allowed to be in the building past 10pm, It as a rule of the Stake President, it sure made it hard to decorate since there was another reception the night before and we had to be in Salt Lake the next day for the wedding. I had never heard of such a rule, and it still sounds crazy to me today.

I just don't see any need to make using the building hard for the members.

johnsonth wrote:Re reservations functionality being unnecessary, I do think that removing the reservation functionality might reduce some confusion. In my own ward, the building scheduler has been confused by how reservations work. Even when I've explained it, the mentality has been to reject the design. Some team members have discussed possibly renaming "reservations" to "facility holds."

I do think there is a need to be able to hold a day or period of time were a specific unit has sole use of the facility such as Youth Nights or Activity Day. So there is a need for the wards assigned to a building to be able to do this. However, that could be done with in the wards themselves by having a board made up of someone from each ward to discuss and come to an agreement and then each ward block out their own days. Perhaps this could be the a ward clerk or ex-secretary responsibility having someone who also attends Bishopric Meeting, PEC, and Ward Council would enable them to the information needed. It would still be the responsibility of the ward organization to calendar there own events.

johnsonth wrote:Reservations seems to be one mechanism to enforce scheduling rules. Without any reservations/restrictions/rules, scheduling might be a little too much of a free-for-all. I'd be interested to hear if you majority opinion thinks reservations should be dramatically altered, and if so, how.

What ever is done do not take the ability for organizations to schedule their own events away. Keeping it at the lowest possible level is just a good practice.

johnsonth wrote:Re the term building scheduler, yes, this is problematic. A building scheduler should not be called a "scheduler" if he or she cannot schedule anything. We've discussed this before but nothing came out of it. The problem is that stakes use "building scheduler" ubiquitously, so the term is hard to change (for example, to something like building coordinator). Any suggestions there? Give building schedulers rights to schedule anything on any calendar? At this point, it seems that the line between a building scheduler and an administrator becomes blurry and not worth distinguishing the two roles with separate names.

No need for a building scheduler at all with the current system. We just need to train the membership in the use of the new calendar. It will work if we let it.

jdlessley wrote:This is not true of any stake in which I have been a member for as far back as I can remember. Even under the previous system units using the building had to coordinate with each other to determine scheduling use. The stake only maintained scheduling control of the stake center. Even then the units meeting in the stake center had considerable input into scheduling use.

and

aebrown wrote:Not in my stake. A representative from each bishopric for the wards that meet in the building get together and work these things out. The agent bishop is in charge of directing that it gets put in the calendar properly. The stake isn't involved at all. It works great -- the decisions are made by those who are closest to the relevant information, and we don't waste other people's time.

I stand corrected. Completely forgot about the whole agent bishop concept. I'm sure it happens the same way in my stake. So really what we are saying is that removing what is currently known as a Building Scheduler and giving that permission to the stake admins is not a great idea. But renaming it to something like a Building Coordinator or some other suggestion that fits better would be appropriate.

I think we are going to find that managing the details of some of this is going to vary ward to ward, stake to stake, and region to region on who keeps the reigns. This will always be the case because men who are called will make the choices they feel are best at the time they make them.

I certainly think some of the suggestions for managing it at a ward level have merit, if the building that Joe Mormon normally meets in is unavailable on the date needed, or doesn't have the resource he was looking for, like maybe the stage, or a ball field, then ultimately he will have to coordinate with someone in another ward in his stake, whom he may or may not know, and still has to arrange to get keys for that building. (I know this is typically more of a Utah type predicament, but I'm sure there are other places where the church is growing that it works similar now or will in the not too distant future) Additionally, I'm not in a calling where I have a lot of sway on how the wards and my stake manage who has keys, who should have keys, how many copies of building keys are made available, and who should be scheduling what for whom. I can certainly make the suggestions that I think will help but it isn't up to me in the end, so realistically, I'm trying to consider what is most likely to happen in my stake.
I think what that will mean is that when I convince them there is a better way to use the calendar (being optimistic here) we'll still have a stake building coordinator who has a set of keys for each building. Anyone who needs to schedule a building and doesn't have edit access on any calendars will then need to contact this individual to schedule a building and arrange to get keys. So what I need to try to make happen at the very least is that whoever is called as a building scheduler has edit access on a private calendar for personal/family type functions. Today in my stake, contact info for the building coordinator is normally found on each ward's sacrament meeting program. Additionally, if added as a stake calling, members should be able to go to the online stake directory for contact info.

Again though, my vote is let's rename the functions, rolls and responsibilities on the Calendar to something that describes what it really is and hopefully eliminate some of the confusion.

RussellHltn wrote:I vote that "reservations" be renamed "restrictions" as discussed in the Reservation terminology thread.

In our Stake, we use the term "assignments" for the current calendar "reservation" functionality. It provides a way to "assign" locations and resources to a unit for a particular period. We use the "block" functionality as well and I can see how that could fall into the "restriction" thinking. Anything away from "reservations" would be welcome, just chiming in on how we make sense of it in our stake. Seems to work very well.

dshepher wrote:In our Stake, we use the term "assignments" for the current calendar "reservation" functionality. It provides a way to "assign" locations and resources to a unit for a particular period

As I noted in this post, the term "Assignment" was the original term for this concept in the first release of the new Calendar. I don't know if your stake's usage of that term is a holdover from the past, or if you simply like the term better. But I agree that "reservation" is worse than "assignment" because "reservation" implies something that a reservation doesn't deliver -- a rock solid booking of the building/room that no one can schedule on top of.

dshepher, you might just have something there. I like the term "Assignments" so why not call the position "Building Assignments Coordinator", their responsibility would be to just assign locations and resources as you mentioned above. With each ward assigned to the building being responsible to booking/scheduling their own events, to include privet events.

A clerk or ex-sec in each ward could be responsible for adding privet events and getting the key to the members.

For members not assigned to a ward in the building they could contact the agent Bishops clerk/ex-sec to book the event and pickup a key. I also think the "Building Assignment Coordinator" should come out of the agent Bishops ward. Here again I think the best position for this would be a clerk or ex-Sec.

Gary_Miller wrote:I also think the "Building Assignment Coordinator" should come out of the agent Bishops ward. Here again I think the best position for this would be a clerk or ex-Sec.

Let's not forget the sisters for this assignment. There are no reasons I can think to limit this to the priesthood.

I placed it in the clerks/ex-sec office because I consider it to be an administrative task and what better place but in administration office. That and the position deals with assigning locations and resources not booking events and those callings by virtue of the meetings they attend are in the best position to have the information needed to assign locations and resources when needed. And if done correctly it won't take much time at all.

The sisters would still have the responsibility for booking the events for their organizations.

dshepher wrote:In our Stake, we use the term "assignments" for the current calendar "reservation" functionality.

That's an improvement over "reservation", but I'm not sure how that works with "blocked".

Also, "assignment" sounds too much like "what ward meets at what building". I see the documentation mentions building schedulers being assigned to a location. So I think there's potential for confusion.

OTOH, one of the few places the word "restriction" shows up in the help file is in explaining how "reservations" work.

The other question is would the functionality of "assign" sound too much like "reservation" and still cause people to use that function instead of creating a event? The whole reason we want to change the language is to get people to understand the usage properly. It seems to me that "restriction" is 180 degrees from "reservation" so it is more likely to cause re-thinking among the existing "building schedulers".

Gary_Miller wrote:I placed it in the clerks/ex-sec office because I consider it to be an administrative...

Administrative or not, there is nothing I can see or find that limits this to the priesthood.

jdlessley wrote:Administrative or not, there is nothing I can see or find that limits this to the priesthood.

The information I gave was only my suggestions and feed back given as was asked for by "johnsonth". It was only my opinion on how I think it should be done, who I think would be the best to do the task, and why I thought that way. Others may have other thoughts, I have no problem with that. The whole purpose here is to discuss the issue and see if we can help the designers correct a potential problem by providing feed back.

I've only been exploring the use of the calendar for a the past two weeks, I'm sure there are others here who have been using it allot longer than that. However, the things I have seen in my area on the calendar use and read from some of the statements on this form, have been way out of sink with what I have read in the help section of the calendar. It seems like no one has read the help information as things related to calendaring are still being done the old way. Which just messes thing up in the end.

This new calendar takes a big paradigm shift in order to make it work properly. Which was one of the reasons I suggested moving the responsibility/duties of "Building Scheduler" as currently set forth in the help guidelines of the calendar to the clerks/ex-sec duties.

RussellHltn wrote:The other question is would the functionality of "assign" sound too much like "reservation" and still cause people to use that function instead of creating a event? The whole reason we want to change the language is to get people to understand the usage properly. It seems to me that "restriction" is 180 degrees from "reservation" so it is more likely to cause re-thinking among the existing "building schedulers".

I agree that "restriction" is a completely different connotation. I honestly don't care what it becomes as long as it changes! Kind of funny how a well intended reference has caused so much confusion. Hopefully it will get changed soon!