Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures

I also think we should review all of the failures — so they get a date— and then systematically review them as they get old. 

Reviews don’t have to be long affairs.   Maybe if every week or three we just take one failure and post it to the list and see if anyone sees any problem with it.  Is it still valid.   

We dont have that many and we should get through them over time.   Good refresher too? 

gregg

> On May 18, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that was JamesN’s (good) suggestion, it would stop the comparison between reviewed and “non-reviewed” techniques/failures.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
>  
> From: "kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com <mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com <mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>>
> 
>  
> +1, with the language Alastair mentioned in the meeting
>  
> (something like:
> “Reviewed dates” were added as of [mm-dd-yyyy]. Anything without a reviewed date was reviewed or added prior to [mm-dd-yyyy].”
>  
>