Simplified HT Reporting Site

While brado426 keeps up the great work on the real solution to HT/VT reporting, I am wanting to create a simplified site that would comply with current church policy and still allow the ward to leverage the power of the internet for Home Teaching reporting. Of course, a stripped down version limits the effectiveness, but in this case it seems that some functionality is better then none.

The challenge then is to come up with a solution that fits within church policy and yet begins to meet the needs of the EQ/HP/RS for reporting purposes.

Here's what I'm thinking, let me know of any problems you foresee:

Disclaimer on each page something to the effect of: "This is not an official church site. This page is being used by the ____ Elder's Quorum as a means to aid in Home Teaching reporting and is not produced, endorsed, or supported by the church. Use of this site complies with current church policy and is subject to local leadership discretion."

Features:

1. In quorum meetings or in PPI's Home Teachers can give their email address to the quorum presidency for inclusion in the site. Alternatively a printed reminder can be given in quorum meetings with a form to complete and hand back.
2. Periodic e-mails will be sent out with a HT reminder and a link for reporting
3. A page will be provided with an e-mail form to be filled out where the HT fills in the field indicating which family was visited
4. E-mail sent directly to district supervisor to be manually recorded in church system
5. Printable form for Home Teachers to fill out manually and hand to/mail to district supervisor

I think this can be expanded within the context of the current church policies, but I think it's a good place to start. Like I said, it excludes an immense amount of the functionality and benefit of Brado's system, but it is at least something to work with. The goal is simply to make reporting a little bit better/easier than it currently is.

What do you think? Would such a system be acceptable?

Nick

I think you might be missing one of the major security concerns with brado's site: the fact that sensitive member data is being hosted on non-Church servers.

If that problem was resolved, then there would be no need for a stripped-down or lighter-weight version; we would just go with brado's solution.

EDIT:
By the way, let's not get into a discussion of whether it really is sensitive data or not. Been there, done that argument...

Thanks.

I thought he was suggesting that instead of having member data on the site, a form is presented to the user that needs to be filled in manually.

I have tried very hard to think of ways to "dumb down" my application so that it could be used and provide some benefit, however I always end up concluding, "What's the point?" The biggest problem I see is that if a blank form is presented to the Home/Visiting teacher, the likelihood of the brother or sister reporting online would be significantly reduced. I have found, by experience, that if you remove too much functionality of a system like this, it ends up being easier to continue with the current method of making phone calls. If you provide the needed functionality, the benefits are enormous.

In my opinion, the key to making this work is to make it as simple and fast as possible for the Home/Visiting teacher to report and also just as easy for the Presidency to retrieve the results. This requires the individual's names and e-mail addresses to be available to the website.

Brad O.

mkmurray wrote:let's not get into a discussion of whether it really is sensitive data or not.

To do a simplified HT/VT site was a good idea, but until we resolve the "what's sensitive" issue, there's no way it can be done.

brado426 wrote:I have found, by experience, that if you remove too much functionality of a system like this, it ends up being easier to continue with the current method of making phone calls. If you provide the needed functionality, the benefits are enormous.

I agree 100%. That's why I would like to see your full solution move forward.

RussellHltn wrote:To do a simplified HT/VT site was a good idea, but until we resolve the "what's sensitive" issue, there's no way it can be done.

I guess what I mean is that us continuing to argue over what is sensitive data is proving fruitless, unless we can have more input from Church employees. I'd like to hear their side of the discussion. It's been pretty quiet from their side.

mkmurray wrote:I think you might be missing one of the major security concerns with brado's site: the fact that sensitive member data is being hosted on non-Church servers.

I haven't missed that at all! In fact, what I'm proposing is designed to completely bypass the need to host any data about anyone that does not specifically give you the information themselves and say, "Please send me an email to remind me to report my home teaching and oh bytheway send it to this email address."

As far as I'm concerned, any data obtained from MLS is sensitive. If however, Brother Smith gives me his e-mail address personally and gives me permission to send him an email, his e-mail is not sensitive data even if it is the same email address he has listed on LUWS.

I think there is a lot we can do in the confines of the current policies to make reporting good, maybe better, but I agree, certainly not best. I know brethren who don't report simply because they don't want to tell someone in person that they didn't home teach this month, so they ignore the phone call or don't return the call when they get the message. It's a lot less intimidating to click an email link, click didn't teach, and click send. It also gives the home teacher an opportunity to give real feedback about the family each month, not just taught or didn't teach.

RussellHltn wrote:To do a simplified HT/VT site was a good idea, but until we resolve the "what's sensitive" issue, there's no way it can be done.

I disagree. There may be no way to include every feature you want, but there are certainly ways to improve reporting.

mkmurray wrote: I guess what I mean is that us continuing to argue over what is sensitive data is proving fruitless, unless we can have more input from Church employees.

I agree. So throw out all data supplied to the church; I think there are still ways we can improve reporting until Brado's system is approved and put into action. "Every little bit helps."

I'm with you, I can't wait until Brado's or a system similar is available, it is the full solution. I'm looking for an interim band aid.

brado426 wrote: I have tried very hard to think of ways to "dumb down" my application so that it could be used and provide some benefit, however I always end up concluding, "What's the point?"

Brad O.

It doesn't make sense to dumb down your application because it is just too good. I totally agree! But that doesn't mean that lesser applications don't serve any purpose at all.

I'm confident that this will be productive. I'm going to start putting my time where my fingers are and I'll put a prototype together. I'll let you know what I come up with.

nimebe wrote:As far as I'm concerned, any data obtained from MLS is sensitive. If however, Brother Smith gives me his e-mail address personally and gives me permission to send him an email, his e-mail is not sensitive data even if it is the same email address he has listed on LUWS.

OK, let's assume for the moment, that all information on the site comes from people entering information about themselves. That sounds like a defensible position. Where can we go with that idea?

RussellHltn wrote:OK, let's assume for the moment, that all information on the site comes from people entering information about themselves. That sounds like a defensible position. Where can we go with that idea?

Either entering it themselves or writing it down and giving it to someone to enter for them. I don't think there is a difference.

nimebe wrote:As far as I'm concerned, any data obtained from MLS is sensitive. If however, Brother Smith gives me his e-mail address personally and gives me permission to send him an email, his e-mail is not sensitive data even if it is the same email address he has listed on LUWS.

Yes, I agree that the "do you give me permission to have your info" model could get us somewhere. However, that person does not have permission to give out the information of the families he or she visits.

I personally don't think the solution is useful without the already filled in info about the families you teach.

RussellHltn wrote:OK, let's assume for the moment, that all information on the site comes from people entering information about themselves. That sounds like a defensible position. Where can we go with that idea?

Given that assumption, I think we start simple. Build a module that excepts basic information from the home teachers themselves: Name, email address. We don't really even need the name.

The system generates an email to remind and offers the available options for reporting:

1) Click the link, fill in the form, send it off
2) Print the form, fill it out, give it to quorum leadership
3) Call your district supervisor and here's the information they've given us for you to contact them

The system can track simple statistics like how many reports are issued, how many are each type of visit etc. None of these reports requires any personal data.

The district supervisors can enter any reports they're given or have the quorum, secretary do it; that is if it is desired to use whatever statistical analysis we can build in.

The Home Teacher can enter the Family names and details about the family because that information is simply emailed to the appropriate local authority, not stored on the system. The code would be open source so any one could check to see that this is so.

This is just what I've come up with in these few minutes today. There is some potential there.

mkmurray wrote:I personally don't think the solution is useful without the already filled in info about the families you teach.

And, you may be right. The available options may not be useful enough to entice home teachers to use the system. The only way to know for sure though is to test it out. Since this is a very simple model, it won't take long to put together. I'll run it by my quorum president and see if he wants to try it out. If not, then that may be strike one, two, and three.

Good luck, nimebe. I don't mean to discourage you with what you are trying to do.

It is true that once you've had the functionality, it is tough to go back to anything less... so maybe that has something to do with my previous comments. Maybe some benefit could be realized. I'm anxious to hear about your progress and results.

I've found that even with all the data there, many Home Teachers do not report electronically if they need to report "Not Visited" because let's face it... no one wants to report that they didn't do something... including me. That is why I added the ability to re-transmit requests for reporting.

Brad O.

brado426 wrote:Good luck, nimebe. I don't mean to discourage you with what you are trying to do.

It is true that once you've had the functionality, it is tough to go back to anything less... so maybe that has something to do with my previous comments. Maybe some benefit could be realized. I'm anxious to hear about your progress and results.

I've found that even with all the data there, many Home Teachers do not report electronically if they need to report "Not Visited" because let's face it... no one wants to report that they didn't do something... including me. That is why I added the ability to re-transmit requests for reporting.

Brad O.

Thanks Brado. Like I said, ultimately I'm cheering you all the way! I just have a nagging desire to try something simpler and see if it doesn't help in the interim.

You have no idea how well I understand your 'nagging desire.' I have the same problem.

Please let me know if you ever learn of a way to make it go away.

brado426 wrote:You have no idea how well I understand your 'nagging desire.' I have the same problem.

Please let me know if you ever learn of a way to make it go away.

If you are married, your wife would probably pay as much for the remedy as mine would!

So if I understand it you just want a auto-reminder to go out? In that case you could set that up using LUWS as a calendar item for the RS or the Elders. As for reporting, those numbers themselves might be considered sensitive information, so it you would have to report in person anyway.

The guidance that I would give you is this:

If you create any kind of site and promote it at the ward level, you may be in violation of Church policy. Why? Because the Church cannot ensure that content on your site properly protects personal information and complies with local and international laws. If a local unit promotes some web site, there is an implied "official sponsorship" of that site. Once that sponsorship is implied, the Church could be liable for what happens on the site.

So the next question that comes up is why can't we do a "one off" type of approach for our site? Why can't we get permission to do OUR site? The answer is that we simply do not have all of the Checks and Balances in place to do this one-off approach. We get multiple requests to do this from time to time. But we don't have a way to validate or verify that everything is handled properly.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm working hard to open up opportunities for 3rd party programs to do official church business. HT/VT is at the top of the list. It just takes time to get the necessary resources aligned and tasked with looking at all of the issues.

Tom

tomw wrote:... sponsorship" of that sight. Once ...

I believe you meant site not sight.

Anyway I think this is the best explination for why the policy is there and why the church wants everything on their servers.

Also thank you for working and allowing 3rd party sites have some way to be sponsered or endorsed.

thedqs wrote:I believe you meant site not sight.

Yes, thanks. I fixed it in my original post.

Tom

I'm looking at this thread and wondering why this couldn't all be done in email...

You can send HTML formatted text, so instead of logging onto a web site, everybody get a personalized email with their specific home teaching assignment. (yah, some people use text only clients, but in my quorum I'd guess I'm the only one not using Outlook).

As for responding... I suppose they could either respond directly to the email or perhaps they could send an HTTP response to some server through a form in the HTML email. In the second case a web server would be involved for collecting statistics, but not for distributing information.

Of course, I'd try to include general statistics in each email sent, maybe an attached png graph showing the results of the past six months or something.

I think this approach gives you most of the important/useful functionality without using a web site....

This is a good idea. We often get "channelized" into only one way of thinking (set up a web site to...) and forget that there may be other answers. As the old saying goes: "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
I already have the member's email address in both MLS and LUWS. (Well, actually, MLS only has ONE email address, mine, not my wife's. That needs to be fixed like our cell phone numbers.) About all that would be needed is a set of check boxes:
John Smith family: Yes[ ] No[ ] Call me to talk about this family[ ]
Fred Snow family: Yes[ ] No[ ] <and so forth>
Hit reply, put something in the check boxes, and send.
It wouldn't even be too hard to program.
--

Again the same wall we hit last time could interfere with emailing. Because you would be sending personal information across computers that are not in your control you cannot insure that the information cannot be recorded onto another server and used to gather sensitive information about someone.

thedqs wrote:Again the same wall we hit last time could interfere with emailing. Because you would be sending personal information across computers that are not in your control you cannot insure that the information cannot be recorded onto another server and used to gather sensitive information about someone.

I think that's a stretch. I've seen nothing about to not use email, only to not upload to 3rd party servers (and not to use email lists which I understand to be things like yahoo groups, not "lists"/groups that one stores in one's own email client).

I'd agree that this route has not been approved, but I think to say it's banned is extending the original statements a bit.

I do have some issues about what can and should be discussed via email, since family members other then the intended recipient may be able to read it. But then one can say the same thing about the printed lists that are handed out too.

Regardless of whether the proposed solution is covered by Church policies, I believe that an e-mail solution is far less secure than what we have discussed before. I know it may not be against Church policy and I know that everyone probably does it, but sending confidential information around in clear text via e-mail is the most likely way for that information to get into the wrong hands.

In my opinion, an SSL secured website is the best option for functionality and security.

Brad O.

RussellHltn wrote:I think that's a stretch. I've seen nothing about to not use email, only to not upload to 3rd party servers (and not to use email lists which I understand to be things like yahoo groups, not "lists"/groups that one stores in one's own email client).

I'd agree that this route has not been approved, but I think to say it's banned is extending the original statements a bit.

I do have some issues about what can and should be discussed via email, since family members other then the intended recipient may be able to read it. But then one can say the same thing about the printed lists that are handed out too.

It is a strech but taking Brad's view the system is even less secure then an the SSL website and that was my point in a round about way.

That being said, let's get a pilot test going with a handful of stakes!

RussellHltn wrote:I think that's a stretch. I've seen nothing about to not use email, only to not upload to 3rd party servers (and not to use email lists which I understand to be things like yahoo groups, not "lists"/groups that one stores in one's own email client).

I'd agree that this route has not been approved, but I think to say it's banned is extending the original statements a bit.

I do have some issues about what can and should be discussed via email, since family members other then the intended recipient may be able to read it. But then one can say the same thing about the printed lists that are handed out too.

What about the existing "email broadcasts" in LUWS.

brado426 wrote:Regardless of whether the proposed solution is covered by Church policies, I believe that an e-mail solution is far less secure than what we have discussed before. I know it may not be against Church policy and I know that everyone probably does it, but sending confidential information around in clear text via e-mail is the most likely way for that information to get into the wrong hands.

In my opinion, an SSL secured website is the best option for functionality and security.

Brad O.

Maybe you're on to something. Maybe sensitive information should just never go across the internet, but should only be exchanged over the telephone. Oh, wait, taping phone lines isn't all that hard. Is snail-mail any more secure? Probably not--and its much slower. Plus you leave a paper trail. And everyone can see smoke signals. Hmmm. Face-to-face is the only way to go....unless you suspect the other guy of recording it in his journal....

--Sarcasm over, sorry, but it was fun to write and I mean no offense--

You are probably right that an SSL secured website *may* be the best option for functionality and security. But it sounds like, at least for now, it is just plain not an option. And IMHO people often think of SSL as a comforting security blanket. Don't be deceived, SSL is only a very *small* part of protecting sensitive data. If this were only about SSL, the church would probably have granted permission years ago.

Anyhow, I'm looking for a solution that would work right now. Email seems the best option. And I think you could take steps to keep the most sensitive information out of email. Usually a phone call is warranted in sensitive situations anyhow.

frog wrote:Maybe you're on to something. Maybe sensitive information should just never go across the internet, but should only be exchanged over the telephone. Oh, wait, taping phone lines isn't all that hard. Is snail-mail any more secure? Probably not--and its much slower. Plus you leave a paper trail. And everyone can see smoke signals. Hmmm. Face-to-face is the only way to go....unless you suspect the other guy of recording it in his journal....

--Sarcasm over, sorry, but it was fun to write and I mean no offense--

You are probably right that an SSL secured website *may* be the best option for functionality and security. But it sounds like, at least for now, it is just plain not an option. And IMHO people often think of SSL as a comforting security blanket. Don't be deceived, SSL is only a very *small* part of protecting sensitive data. If this were only about SSL, the church would probably have granted permission years ago.

Anyhow, I'm looking for a solution that would work right now. Email seems the best option. And I think you could take steps to keep the most sensitive information out of email. Usually a phone call is warranted in sensitive situations anyhow.

I fully realize that nothing is 100% secure. But there is a huge difference between transmitting plain text e-mails through public smtp gateways as opposed to using a security method that is adopted by most banks (SSL).

I still believe that some things should either be done right or not done at all. I believe that an e-mail only system would not provide much value and be far less secure than an SSL Website solution. If the Church's policies are causing people to look at less secure and less functional methods of getting something done, the policy should probably be modified to be even more restrictive. If we're not allowed to store confidential data on a secured website, we certainly shouldn't be allowed to transmit confidential data via clear text e-mail. It just makes logical sense.

Brad O.

Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't see the harm in sending an email--something like the following. What exactly is so confidential, that it must be transfered fully encrypted? Maybe if I understand the issue better, I'll see your side of things.


Hi Joe

You HT assignments are:

Bill
123 Parkway Ave
555-555-5555

Tim
321 Waypark Rd
555-555-5556

Please report you HT numbers by the 31st. Call me or reply to this email.

Please do not send confidential information in this email. Rather, call me at 555-555-5557.

Last month we had 67% HT. Keep up the good work.


EQ

frog wrote:Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't see the harm in sending an email--something like the following. What exactly is so confidential, that it must be transfered fully encrypted? Maybe if I understand the issue better, I'll see your side of things.


Hi Joe

You HT assignments are:

Bill
123 Parkway Ave
555-555-5555

Tim
321 Waypark Rd
555-555-5556

Please report you HT numbers by the 31st. Call me or reply to this email.

Please do not send confidential information in this email. Rather, call me at 555-555-5557.

Last month we had 67% HT. Keep up the good work.


EQ

This SSL secured website actually requires less data than you mentioned above.... and it is not allowed by the Church: http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=502

Brad O.

brado426 wrote:This SSL secured website actually requires less data than you mentioned above.... and it is not allowed by the Church: http://tech.lds.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28

Brad O.

Well, that seems to me like a completely separate issue. When you start hosting a general purpose global site, and that site has home teaching records and information for every member of the church, security becomes so much more than SSL. One small security hole and everything is exposed on a global scale. One lost password, one malicious user, etc... How many people do you think might choose "lds" as their password into the system. My wife probably would.

The email idea would decentralize everything. Each presidency would have the option of running it on their own computer for their quorum/group/society. The only information in the system is names, phone numbers, and addresses. No logging in, no passwords. If someone decides to hack in, well fine. That's all they get. One super small subset of data. Could have just used a phone book.

Or if you're looking to do something direct from lds.org, that will work too. Not decentralized, but you're not adding any additional security needs (just a bunch more email being sent). No new ways for someone to hack in. I think I would prefer running a program from my home computer though.

I fully understand why the SSL secured website is a questionable idea. I haven't figured out why email would be.

From what I gathered because your email could connect the church in a legal battle over loss of personal information (ie that the person is a member of the church) if someone got ahold of your email. In addition, the church doesn't have direct control over that information. That was the problem with websites and could be applied to email.

Of course being that strict could severly limit current communication that uses these channels and until we here something from tomw or the church I think it is up to you what you do, just realize that the church could halt your program for the same reasons that brad's site was offlined.

frog wrote:Well, that seems to me like a completely separate issue. When you start hosting a general purpose global site, and that site has home teaching records and information for every member of the church, security becomes so much more than SSL. One small security hole and everything is exposed on a global scale. One lost password, one malicious user, etc... ...

The email idea would decentralize everything. Each presidency would have the option of running it on their own computer for their quorum/group/society. The only information in the system is names, phone numbers, and addresses. No logging in, no passwords. If someone decides to hack in, well fine. That's all they get. One super small subset of data. Could have just used a phone book.

Yes. When one thinks about security, one has to ask "secure from what". I think we tend to focus too much on interception and not think about the other risks. Another issue with a server is that only the person putting up the server knows the real reason for doing so. We have no way of knowing that a non-church server's intentions are good and there's no secret agenda.

Right now I think one of our wards is sending MLS HT printouts converted to PDF though email. Can someone show me where that's not allowed? The ability is there now. I'm sure that out there somewhere there are wards and stakes doing the same thing - sending information via email and nothing has come out about it. So I don't see any problem with the small step of automating the emails.

thedqs wrote:From what I gathered because your email could connect the church in a legal battle over loss of personal information (ie that the person is a member of the church) if someone got ahold of your email. In addition, the church doesn't have direct control over that information. That was the problem with websites and could be applied to email.

Of course being that strict could severly limit current communication that uses these channels and until we here something from tomw or the church I think it is up to you what you do, just realize that the church could halt your program for the same reasons that brad's site was offlined.

I've intentionally been silent as there is no further official guidance other than what has been discussed. Could any system be breached by someone trying to do bad things? Absolutely. There is no absolutely perfect method of securing data other than sealing it in a capsule and sending it off to space. Data is no good if we cannot gain access to it. So this is not JUST a security issue. The Church spends a great amount of effort to ensure that policies, rules, local, national, and international laws are followed with our Web sites. 3rd party entities that do not know about such laws don't and probably cannot monitor data the way we have to.

Let me paint the picture another way. Let's say I create a cool web site that tracks family pictures for the ward. I export / import data from MLS into my web site so that I have a ward database pre-populated with member information. Now this web sites purpose is for people to update their family information on my database with individual pictures of their family members. In wards with a lot of new move ins, this would be a cool site. Now let's pretend that my bishop in Sacrament meeting encourages everyone in the ward to update their pictures on the web site. I make my web site secure and I also allow people to "opt out" if they choose. It is easy to say that this is following all rules and what could possibly go wrong. However, if this data were to be compromised (someone tells someone else their login name/password, there is a bug in the software, etc) the Church could be exposed BECAUSE the Bishop asked members to use the site. The Bishop, acting in his ecclesiastical position could bring liability to the Church. Everyone was well intentioned but these things do happen. Now you may be saying, isn't the Church already have exposure if someone shares their LDS.org account info and people get into the official Church system? Of course there is exposure but we are trying to limit this exposure by controlling the # of ways to be exposed.

I have to drive my car, it is a necessity of life. However if I follow rules, limit my driving, don't speed, don't drive recklessly, don't drive while sleepy, I can limit the chance that I will get in an accident. I cannot eliminate it but I can limit it. It is the same concept here.

Many many people use email in their Church callings. We use it at the Church. So no one should interpret the existing policy as a ban against all email for Church purposes. We all have to choose, given the amount of information that we have, what we will do. What we do know is that the Church has asked us NOT to have Web sites for official church business.

Tom

Tom - thank you for the additional guidance. It's encouraging to me to see the community have these discussions because this is the only way we'll find a solution that will work.

Several programs have been discussed on this forum, including one of Tom's, which store sensitive data on a locally run machine. Another is the Emergency Preparedness project. As far as I know these projects are still active.

This makes me think that a system that stored Home Teaching assignments locally and presented that information in a variety of ways would be fine. The only difference I see between me copy/pasting this information into an e-mail and clicking send and using a program to automate it is that the amount of time the task takes would be dramatically cut.

If the church decides that sending information exported from MLS is a security risk, they will ask us not to do so, we'll comply, and we'll look for another solution. I'm game.

nimebe wrote:Tom - thank you for the additional guidance. It's encouraging to me to see the community have these discussions because this is the only way we'll find a solution that will work.

Several programs have been discussed on this forum, including one of Tom's, which store sensitive data on a locally run machine. Another is the Emergency Preparedness project. As far as I know these projects are still active.

This makes me think that a system that stored Home Teaching assignments locally and presented that information in a variety of ways would be fine. The only difference I see between me copy/pasting this information into an e-mail and clicking send and using a program to automate it is that the amount of time the task takes would be dramatically cut.

If the church decides that sending information exported from MLS is a security risk, they will ask us not to do so, we'll comply, and we'll look for another solution. I'm game.

nimebe: If you could think of a way to keep the e-mails in a standardized format, you could auto-process the returned e-mails. That might be a challenge, but you could probably notify the Presidency member when it encounters an e-mail that it doesn't know what to do with and allow them to manually handle it.

I'd love to help, but I'm now gunshy regarding investing any more of my time on any project that isn't 100% endorsed by the Church.

Brad O.

I recently came across this command line email program, which looks helpful:

http://www.cleancode.org/projects/email

I thought I would offer the perspective of a HP Group Leader familiar with Brado's HT/VT Reporting site. Our ward was fortunate to be able to use the site for several months prior to it being taken offline. Since August we have had to go back to the old ways of reporting and have tried to do as much as possible through emails. While emailing cuts down on some of the phone calls, it does not come anywhere near accomplishing what we were able to do with Brado's system. It now takes us 10 to 20 man hours a month to accomplish what only took minutes with Brado's system. I think we should be focusing on getting Brado's site approved, as anything less would be a big disappointment.

We felt Brado had developed an almost perfect HT/VT reporting system. We found it dramatically increased the efficiency and quality of our HT/VT reporting, allowing leadership to spend less time gathering HT/VT reports and focus more time on responding to the information gathered. Surprisingly, we also found it to be a motivating factor, as we witnessed significant increases in the numbers of families and individuals visited.

A question I keep hearing from many members and some of the Bishop's is "When are we going to get that great HT/VT reporting system back." Several of the Group, Quorum, and Relief Socety leaders in our stake have addressed letters to Joel Dehlin, CIO for the Church, requesting his helping in getting the system approved and implemented. We are hoping Church Leaders can approve moving the site to a Church server and then approve a pilot group to use the site while the Church monitors it and address any security and/or other concerns.

During a Tech Talk discussion held in SLC last January, Brother Dehlin presented a vision of what technology should do for the Church: "It should deliver high quality content to every corner of the earth, decrease administration and increase ministration, and bring souls to Christ. There is a great, untapped resource of people who are tech-savvy and could improve the technology of the Church. The time has come to utilize their knowledge."

We appreciate very much Tom's continued efforts to get Brado's HT/VT reporting site approved and implemented. We are trying to be patient, but feel frustrated by the loss of this extremely valuable tool.

jerbarb wrote: A question I keep hearing from many members and some of the Bishop's is "When are we going to get that great HT/VT reporting system back." Several of the Group, Quorum, and Relief Socety leaders in our stake have addressed letters to Joel Dehlin, CIO for the Church, requesting his helping in getting the system approved and implemented. We are hoping Church Leaders can approve moving the site to a Church server and then approve a pilot group to use the site while the Church monitors it and address any security and/or other concerns.

Some movement is starting to happen on this project. Please have everyone who sent letters to Joel or who would send a letter send, send or forward them to me. You can send them via Email.

Joel is the Church's CIO but does not make the decisions as to what products we should produce. This application falls within the Priesthood department. I'd like to have a handful of well written letters with information about how much more efficient you were able to do your jobs when I meet with them next about this issue.

Tom

tomw wrote:I'd like to have a handful of well written letters with information about how much more efficient you were able to do your jobs when I meet with them next about this issue.

Tom: Remember the letters that I posted here:

http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=502&page=24

They go on for 10 or so posts. If you need them in their original format, please let me know.

Brad O.

tomw wrote:I'd like to have a handful of well written letters with information about how much more efficient you were able to do your jobs when I meet with them next about this issue.

I'd suggest that the letters be clear in distinguishing between an improvement in reported numbers and actual teaching improvements. Specific examples would be helpful. Indicate not that it helped, but how much it helped.

brado426 wrote:Tom: Remember the letters that I posted here:

http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=502&page=24

They go on for 10 or so posts. If you need them in their original format, please let me know.

Brad O.

I've grabbed the letters from this thread. Thanks!

Tom