Re: [IUG] Automating MARC record output via Millennium ?

[Bob Duncan <duncanr at lafayette dot edu>]

At 12:25 AM 4/6/2011, Mark wrote:
> REP-2 did poorly in the voting. It's
> a pity relative date searching was buried in
> with something unrelated. You had to read
> REP-2 carefully to find it.
>
> If III are alert they might realise this enhancement
> - even though it scored poorly - could sell more
> Scheduler licenses. Hopefully they factor this
> in as well as the voting.


Innovative is very alert, and I think that if they based their 
product development purely on the results of the IUG enhancements 
process voting, we'd all be using a different system because they 
would have gone out of business long long ago.  AFAICT, if a request 
is doable and implementing it fits III's business model and their 
product vision, it'll make it into the programming regardless of its 
place in a popularity poll.  (And vice versa -- the tippy top vote 
getter every year for a decade won't be implemented it if it doesn't 
fit the model and vision.)

Bob Duncan


~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~
Robert E. Duncan
Systems Librarian
Lafayette College
Easton, PA  18042
duncanr at lafayette dot edu
http://library.lafayette.edu/ 


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.