TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Subject:Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization? From:Ryan Young <ryangyoung -at- gmail -dot- com> To:Robert Fekete <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com> Date:Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:22:39 -0700
We're looking at implementing an M of N feature and people referred to it
as segregation of duties. Then defined each permission: initiate-only,
execute-only, etc.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Robert Fekete <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com>
wrote:
> First of all, many thanks for all of you for the ideas!
>
> @Bridget: Two-person integrity is, as far as I understand, for accessing
> information, not for performing actions.
>
> @Margaret: Dual Control Authorization and @Lin: two-man rule: These sounds
> about right, my only concern with them is that they suggest (at least to
> me) that two person have the same authority, and are interchangeable, which
> is not the case in our product. Nevertheless, we may end up using one of
> these.
>
> @Peter (and your wife) and @Robert: Require sign-off sounds interesting,
> I'll run it within our team.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Double sign-off" sounds like three people.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Peter Neilson <neilson -at- windstream -dot- net>
> > wrote:
> > > My wife the quality engineer says that in her labs they called it
> "double
> > > sign-off". (No diphrasic or multipastural anti-words required!)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) |
> > http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
> >
> > Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> > http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> > info.
> >
> > Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
> online
> > magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> >
> > Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> > email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) |
>http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as ryangyoung -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW