InC-Lib-Vendor

[Andy Ingham <>]

Yes, that's a nuance I didn't appreciate.  Question 3 would ALWAYS be 
presented (wouldn't be conditional on 2) and some rewording would be needed.

Andy

Ann West wrote:
> Andy,
>
> One comment below:
>
> > > > Do we care if several people from an institution complete the survey 
> > > > and possibly provide conflicting answers? 
> > > I think we do care. I would think we would want only one response per 
> > > institution. Not sure how we police that, other than stating so in the 
> > > email that we'll send out, as well as in the survey intro text.
> > I'M NOT SURE IF DISAGREEMENT AT THIS STAGE OR IN THIS CONTEXT IS A BAD 
> > THING.  SINCE THE RESULTS ARE RELATIVELY "PRIVATE" (THEY ARE, AREN'T 
> > THEY?), CONFLICTING ANSWERS AT LEAST PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS AT 
> > A GIVEN CAMPUS TO DISCUSS LOCALLY AMONGST THEMSELVES (PRESUMABLY, THE 
> > UPSIDE IS THAT WE'D KNOW AT LEAST WHO NEEDS TO TALK TO WHOM!)
>
> Then we should ask for a contact name as a requirement so we know who to 
> connect with whom?
>
> Ann