Talk:Volunteer Intake Howto - Revision history

Shawn at 09:00, 4 January 2006

2006-01-04T09:00:11Z

Rfs at 17:39, 31 December 2005

2005-12-31T17:39:50Z

Halfasspete at 06:09, 30 December 2005

2005-12-30T06:09:42Z

New page

I removed the following paragraph. It seems too unusual for a general-purpose document. Yes? No?

:It is possible to work through the Build Program and receiving a computer after 24 hours of work. These people should be recorded as "Wait" and "Build" in the database. They, and this is the same for everyone on the wait list, may come in and volunteer before being called off the list, but they shouldn't record their hours into the database until they've been called and invited in.

--[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 22:09, 29 Dec 2005 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 4 January 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: Yeah. I went through and took a stab at removing the waiting list stuff altogether. No longer relevant at all. I also added an advisory about the adoption class, which is more of a problem nowadays. [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 09:39, 31 Dec 2005 (PST)		: Yeah. I went through and took a stab at removing the waiting list stuff altogether. No longer relevant at all. I also added an advisory about the adoption class, which is more of a problem nowadays. [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 09:39, 31 Dec 2005 (PST)
		+
		+
		+	I also added a note about the adoption packet (is it even being passed out??). The whole question of working though build and adoption at the same time (which Pete refers to above) is still relevant, even though the wait list stuff isn't. It's a question that doesn't get asked very often, though.
		+
		+	I also took out the bit about recording someone as an "organization" in the database if they're representing an organization. For volunteers, this will hardly ever happen (it'll only occur when a group of volunteers from an org. would like to pool thier hours in the database). For now, if groups come in, the individuals should all be people, and we can put an organization in the org. field or the notes field (especially if the individual is the group's leader/chaperone), I think. [[User:Shawn\|Shawn]] 01:00, 4 Jan 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 31 December 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:

	--[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 22:09, 29 Dec 2005 (PST)		--[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 22:09, 29 Dec 2005 (PST)
		+
		+	: Yeah. I went through and took a stab at removing the waiting list stuff altogether. No longer relevant at all. I also added an advisory about the adoption class, which is more of a problem nowadays. [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 09:39, 31 Dec 2005 (PST)