My RSVP Reports are missing scouts.
I have been granted Committee Secretary and also Patrol Admin to all but one patrol. I am able to create calendars events and mark rsvp status. However, when running an RSVP report, some scouts are missing. The only difference I can see is the ones where my connections are labeled as View Advancement, View profile are missing. Whereas when my connection to a scout is Full Control due to being granted Patrol Admin, they appear as expected.
Shouldn’t Committee Secretary permission, which has the right to create events and mark RSVP status, also grant the right to generate the RSVP Report?
This seems like a bug.
@RickDavis - committee secretary does not have auto granted rights. Unit and Patrol admins do so not a bug. A unit admin would need to add the connections for you.
@Stephen_Hornak, thank you for your response. But what rights are required?
IAW scoutbook-permissions-defined Committee Secretary can edit calendar events including setting RSVP. I see no indication that additional rights beyond CS or Activity Chair are required to generate RSVP Reports.
Even so, View Profile should be sufficient, yes?
It’s reasonable to expect that the right to define RSVP status should include reporting on RSVP status, yes?
@RickDavis - my recollection is that reports rest with full control and you verified that by stating that the missing scouts are those for which you do not have full control.
It’s problematic to have a report appear to work properly but is factually wrong due to data exclusion. Particularly without any warning. Compounded by the expectation that sufficient permissions were allocated in accordance with the documented requirements.
IMO, needing Full Control for RSVP Reporting negates the value of granular permissions. My ask is that Calendaring (to include RSVP Reporting) be easier to delegate to other leaders without requiring Full Control for every scout. Assigning the Committee Secretary role seemed to be a reasonable approach until this limitation was discovered.
Just constructive feedback.
1 Like
Unfortunately, the permissions structure underlying Scoutbook is very…coarse in terms of degrees of access, and as I understand it from prior posts by SUAC folks was not programmed to permit easy refinement in granularity.
It’s a known issue, and one that is “in the backlog”, based on responses to similar prior requests. However, given how deeply embedded it is, I suspect that any fundamental changes to the permissions structure are likely to get punted off until whatever the successor application is for Scoutbook. That’s not what I’d like to see personally in terms of an implementation “timeline”, particularly given the myriad things i dislike about the UI/UX for IA2 (which I understand was at one point, and possibly still is, the planned successor for Scoutbook). However, those decisions are made much farther up the food chain than where users like me sit. :^)
I’ve requested that a note that it is incomplete be added when that is the case.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
