Hi John,

Perhaps I misused the word "jerk". Maybe a less strong word.

Regardless, it's 99.9% technical issues when we think an enhancement would be really cool and then find that we can't do it. I'm hard-pressed to recall any feature we've shot down for budgetary reasons.

Almost always, it's one of two issues that cause a feature to be liked but not implemented: Research indicates that it may destabilize or change legacy behavior or it's something that can be easily done now through other means.


>>
>Furthermore, what if we think an enhancement would be great -- tell the requester the same - and then find that it can't be technically done? Then we look like jerks.
>>
>
>Why would that make you look like a jerk? You could conclude that something would be a great addition - but still be technically not-feasible. Clearly, it would be a good idea to have the technical i's dotted an t's crossed. Jumping the gun may make you mis-quided - but I don't think that arises to being a jerk.
>
>That said, what would be a jerk move is some contrived technical reason when the real reason is financial/budgetary. In those cases, far better to just say nothing. Or, if something gets said, far better to just say that it won't be done for finanical/budgtary reasons.
>
>< JVP >