Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Restrictions???

Expand Messages
  • Robert Givens
    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
    Message 1 of 37 , May 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      Bob Givens

      --- 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
      >
    • Venita Roylance
      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
      Message 37 of 37 , May 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        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.

        Venita


        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.