Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

On 27/04/2016 14:33, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> agree
>
> failures don’t become failures on the date they were documented.
>   Failures are failures whether we document them or not. Documenting
> them is just a courtesy to people to make COMMON failures more evident
> (and less common).
 >
> They should stay up as long as they are accurate and should be removed
> when not.      And we can document failures at any time it seems
> helpful.    But the date a failure is documented has nothing to do with
> anything.

But what about failures which are now only failures because there is new 
technology available now? Which weren't failures previously because the 
technology wasn't even available?

I do believe it matters since you could potentially go back to any 
previous audits that were done before the failure was added and point 
out that they now fail that based on the interpretation provided by this 
new common failure, which uses a technology that may not have even been 
around at the time the original audit was made.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 14:33:24 UTC