Given fields on user record that are currently in place, how should this appear? Given proposed fields on user record (statistical code/affiliation, custom fields), to what extent are these fields helpful to show on an anonymized loan (as opposed to just in reporting)
Some questioned priority and felt they might just enable all kinds of requests for all item states and then use request policies to limit what can be done
Others felt this would be useful and is better than what they have today
A few people thought it would be nice to be able to do this configuration by location or library (as opposed to by tenant)
But people also felt that different configurations with a single tenant invited a great deal of complexity for the system and patrons
Revisited decision about which requests should display in the loan action history table:
In light of the fact that we are designing a "circ log" with detailed info about requests on items by patrons, do we really need to display all requests in the loan action history?
This is complex development
Developers say it would be much easier to fix the bug if we just showed requests that affect due date
SIG would still prefer to see all, as requests that don't change the due date can also impact the loan. Holds may make it impossible to renew a loan, for example
BUT SIG agreed that if we had the circ log easily accessible and also a link to the request queue, it would be fine
Of the fields currently on an anonymized loan, display some text where a name has been scrubbed, and display the patron group always
Of the proposed user record fields to retain on an anonymized loan (statistical codes, custom fields such as department), show, but having them one click away is also fine
Further question: should what fields are retained on loans also be included in anonymization settings?
These are not loan related notices, they are system action (e.g. registration, block) notices.
n.b. each ILLiad 'item' is unique to a given patron