This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kylu (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 24 February 2009 (→completeness?: as much as I can.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:36, 24 February 2009 by Kylu (talk | contribs) (→completeness?: as much as I can.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)