They aren’t disagreeing at all. They are pointing out how your design goes directly against the set program based on the faq posted.
That FAQ was updated by a later one that does not address that PLC’s must be separate.
It’s also possible that it’s not the individual’s personal opinion coming through, but something they have specifically been told by BSA in such a meeting that they can’t specifically say they were told by the BSA. Based on previous discussions with folks from SUAC, I know that there are things they are aware of through their work with SUAC that they are not allowed to share with the “general scouting public”. Some of those things may be planning-related (e.g. expected scope or timing of software feature implementation), and some of those may be program-related (e.g. why something like the Calendar Editor position is only available to a youth who is actively registered with the unit for which the position applies). With apologies to Tom Lehrer, often-times the SUAC folks are trying to slide down the razor blade of life without getting cut. They genuinely are aiming to assist the volunteers, but they have limits placed by the BSA on what they can do and/or say in some arenas.
1 Like
I worked many hours with our DE to implement this linked troop and setup the structure to follow BSA guidelines. It is frustrating to come to a forum and have outdated FAQs thrown at me telling me I am not following the BSA rules.
I guess that would be the issue with assuming FAQs are rules.
My request stands, please be mindful of linked troops when making decisions in Scoutbook.
Thank you.
@KristaHolmes - just to be VERY clear… the BSA makes the implementation in scoutbook and NOT the volunteers in the forums. So please direct your anger and outrage at the BSA professionals.
Anger and outrage? I think you are misreading my intent. No anger or outrage here.
And if that is the case, why do they even bother responding here. Seems very counter productive.
@KristaHolmes - the forums are volunteer based. Now I think there may be confusion about linked troops… The “linking” is in the adult structure not in the youth side. As far as program they are independent as you are not likely to have the youth leadership of a female troop as a part of the youth leadership of the boy troop and the inverse being the same. If at some point there are co-ed troops then that would be a different story as the youth could be dual registered. The calendar editor if I recall correctly was added prior to the female units… but I could be wrong.
Nah, it actually got added in March of last year: March 15, 2021 Scoutbook Updates
I suspect we’ve collectively beaten the horse OP’s question to death, though. It seems (without SUAC officially saying so) like the direction that the developers are getting is to treat linked units the same as non-linked units. If there’s an interest in this changing, it needs to go up via the council professionals.
1 Like
A lot was developed before linked troops, which is the point of this request. To remember to include linked troops in future planning. And I included an example of how the system works against linked linked troops.
If this is not where I am suppose to post this, please direct me to where it should be posted, this is where my council has directed me to post ideas for fixes and improvements to Scoutbook.
@KristaHolmes - I am thinking this would be a new feature request, but since the BSA considers the registration of a unit member(youth) to be restricted to that unit unless dual registered I doubt the youth side would be re-designed to allow rights to a unit of which they do not belong. I think that is the part you might not be realizing. The youth membership is NOT linked not will it be.
Everyone keeps saying that, however den chief scouts can show up in two different units - there is a mechanism to make that happen, which is why I don’t buy the line everyone is towing.
It is fine, I get it. I am the one beating a dead horse.
Den chiefs are assigned to a pack. Scouts in a girl troop are never assigned to a boy troop. That is the difference.
As I said before if you want policy changes to allow co-ed troops, which is what you are essentially advocating for, you will need to work through your council staff. Scoutbook cannot be updated to do what you are asking without a policy change.
1 Like
I am not and have not asked for co-ed troops. please don’t put words into my posts. Don’t make me out to be a villain because we have different views on implementation of linked troops.
If the direction is to exclude linked troops from the new calendar implementation, I would ask for the courtesy of a heads up (several months before it is rolled out to production), as we would need to find an alternative calendar platform for our linked troops. This is a big deal for linked troops.
Thank you
I am not asking to have girls in a boy troop or
vice versa. It is software, I gave a suggestion on how to make this work without adding scouts into the other troop.
@KristaHolmes - what you are NOT understanding is that it is a rights thing and linked to unit registration. It is not that simple of a request but since you seem to have a better understanding of the architecture of the system, please feel free to suggest it to your council professionals.
I don’t claim anything, just making a suggestion. Thank you for the clear response. That makes sense. Too bad we couldn’t have just opened with that.
This thread is being closed - @KristaHolmes the best way to get traction is to have Council send in an official request
