Page 4 of 4
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:02 pm
by JPG
dusty wrote:I once worked in an organization where that was referred to as "removing your foot". The unspoken words were "without getting any on yourself".
We often found it necessary to "revise requirements" but were pressed hard not to change anything that we had already released. With a bit of practice, you can get pretty good at extricating yourself.
Question is, why, when an error or oversight is committed, should it be necessary to use an addendum that contradicts the original rather than just revise the original.
Anyone surmounting all that extra 'stuff' will conclude the obvious anyway!
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:11 pm
by dusty
JPG40504 wrote:Question is, why, when an error or oversight is committed, should it be necessary to use an addendum that contradicts the original rather than just revise the original.
Anyone surmounting all that extra 'stuff' will conclude the obvious anyway!
Based on my experience, it is all political. If you have never worked in a highly political environment you would not understand. It is too unbelievable to accept without having had the experience.
The trick is to revise the requirement without making if obvious that you are contradicting that which has already been written.
BTW, it is an experience that you really do not want to have so if you have not - consider yourself fortunate. I retired early just to get out of that environment.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:14 pm
by JPG
dusty wrote:Based on my experience, it is all political. If you have never worked in a highly political environment you would not understand. It is too unbelievable to accept without having had the experience.
The trick is to revise the requirement without making if obvious that you are contradicting that which has already been written.
BTW, it is an experience that you really do not want to have so if you have not - consider yourself fortunate. I retired early just to get out of that environment.
I am quite familiar with a similar 'environment'.
I hesitated not one yactosecond when the opportunity to bail occurred.
Yes I looked it up!:D
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:33 pm
by terrydowning
JPG40504 wrote:Question is, why, when an error or oversight is committed, should it be necessary to use an addendum that contradicts the original rather than just revise the original.
Anyone surmounting all that extra 'stuff' will conclude the obvious anyway!
This also has to do with the amount of coordination required on a simple change (addendum, change, etc.) versus a rewrite(revision).
Revisions take a lot longer because a lot more agencies and people are involved.
besides with out things like this, what would lawyers have to do?
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:12 pm
by JPG
terrydowning wrote:This also has to do with the amount of coordination required on a simple change (addendum, change, etc.) versus a rewrite(revision).
Revisions take a lot longer because a lot more agencies and people are involved.
besides with out things like this, what would lawyers have to do?
That pretty well narrows down the 'source' of the 'problem'!;)
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:59 pm
by charlese
Goodness! Didn't we fully discuss this subject a couple years ago? Remember??????
Why now are these concerns re-surfacing??????
Did we not care earlier, when the regs were being put into effect.?????
Summary - There is no concern with wood products or glue or finishes that you can now purchase. However watch out for small parts that can/will come loose, and metal fasteners.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:06 pm
by foxtrapper
JPG40504 wrote:
Wonder if different folks created different 'sections' with no oversight.
Oh dear god yes. Drives me nuts dealing with them. At the federal level, a great many regulations are written by lawyers who have no knowledge of the subject (and make no bones about this). They work by having individual lawyers write each section separately and individually. They are then simply gathered together and published as a draft regulation or law.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:45 pm
by JPG
foxtrapper wrote:Oh dear god yes. Drives me nuts dealing with them. At the federal level, a great many regulations are written by lawyers who have no knowledge of the subject (and make no bones about this). They work by having individual lawyers write each section separately and individually. They are then simply gathered together and published as a draft regulation or law.
And we wonder why things are so screwed up! Problem is no one challenges the lunacy.