| Revision as of 06:05, 18 February 2009 editJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits →completeness?: new section | Revision as of 06:36, 24 February 2009 edit undoKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits →completeness?: as much as I can.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == completeness? == | == completeness? == | ||
| Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I think I can only reasonably opine on my own checks: If I'm asked for second opinion work, I've been putting the detail into the private log, so cu's can get information from the person who initiated the check. The SPI investigation suggestion makes sense. ] (]) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:36, 24 February 2009
completeness?
Do you intend for this log to be a complete history of your CU usage? If so, SPI investigations should link to the SPI page, and you will need to think about how much detail you want to give when doing second opinion work; I think that using "second opinion" would be an appropriate summary, but you might like to explain the nature of the actual investigation rather than the reason you are doing it. John Vandenberg 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I can only reasonably opine on my own checks: If I'm asked for second opinion work, I've been putting the detail into the private log, so cu's can get information from the person who initiated the check. The SPI investigation suggestion makes sense. Kylu (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)