- Miles - As usual you are right on. The releasing of names from your reserved list probably will be addressed my the engineers down the line. That would be a wonderful feature. I have heard the desire of the engineers to release names held by deceased patrons mentioned before as a feature that will eventually come.
A lot of our suggestions, practical and impractical alike, need to be weighed against a limited staff time and the priorities that have been set for upgrades to this beta system. I stand (sit) in amazement as to what the engineers have been able to create. This is a program written from scratch, plowing land never plowed before metaphorically speaking. To be able to create a system that has over half a billion records available to be edited by all simultaneously is beyond my comprehension.
The changes will come in increments. Yesterday a new Beta rolled out for nFS. The IOUS issue has been changed to 150 individuals in a folder. Yes, not enough, but a move in the right direction. Keep the suggestions rolling, just don't expect immediate results. Miles, your suggestion was the best to surface in a long time IMHO.
--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Miles Meyer <milesmeyer@...> wrote:
> I agree that many people might be able to do large numbers of names
> and should be able to reserve them if the want to. However, some
> people may just horde the names. Others may accidentally reserve names
> when they are in classes just learning how to work nFS. What I would
> like to see is a button to return reserved names back to the pile so
> others can do them. Also we could consider an almost automatic return
> of reserved names if the person reserving the names dies.
> Miles Meyer
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Leslie Vaughn <Leslievaughn@...> wrote:
> > Currently it stops you at 50 names per FOR, however you can reserve an
> > unlimited amount such as the 52 pages referred to below. Also if you want to
> > do more than 50 at a time you can print the FOR and then go back and request
> > another 50 and so on.
> > I agree that we should not hoard these names. But I think just reserving
> > what can be done in a month is a little restrictive. Our ward youth were
> > doing a baptism trip earlier this month. I had almost 100 names for them to
> > do. All will be complete within 3 months with help from friends. I know it
> > is not always possible for everyone, but when I drive 100 miles one way to
> > the temple I try to make it productive by doing at least 2 endowments, more
> > often 3 and sometime as many as 5, at least 20 to 30 initiatories, and about
> > 30 or 40 sealings in that trip. The only restrictions I face when on a
> > temple trip are the lack of temple workers to help me in the initiatory and
> > sealing areas.
> > So I think the solution to the problem of reserved names is not a
> > restriction on the number but a timeframe that they must be completed. We
> > have discussed that in the past. I feel that reserved names should be
> > released if the ordinances are not completed within 365 days. With the way
> > technology is today, perhaps an automated e-mail could be sent after 6
> > months and after 9 months and then at 12 months, to remind the submitter of
> > the time frame and then at the end of 12 months the names are released back
> > into the "pot" If the email bounces back at the intervals specified then the
> > name would be released before the 12 months. This might encourage self
> > restriction of the numbers reserved and it also might encourage the
> > submitter to keep personal information such as e-mail addresses up to date.
> > We have something similar at work, where the computer reminds us when there
> > is a time deadline and we get our notifications at the intervals as
> > described above so I know there is technology somewhere that can do this.
> > Just my 2 cents
> > Leslie
- Yes, I agree that the wording is misleading. I sent feedback on it
some time ago. Maybe more people need to send the same feedback? It
looks like one of the easier problems to fix in nFS - just change the
wording on one button.
On May 2, 2009, at 1:18 PM, The Allens wrote:
> Sister Roylance,
> Nope! You are correct. My bad. I made a bad assumption that the Temple
> label made it available to anyone, including temples. I was not
> aware of the
> separate "Temple" pool. This is explained in Doc 103442. I think the
> wording "Make Names Available for Others to DO" is highly misleading;
> nevertheless, I went off half-cocked again. Sorry all.
> Dean Allen
> Annapolis MD
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Venita Roylance" <venitar@...>
> To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: Restrictions???
> > As I understand it, "locked-up" names can only be released to the
> > temple pot, not to the general public. Am I in error?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]