> >(sigh) I'll try, but I'm trying to handle this in the same way as I'd
> >handle one of the web-sites our team run at work. If there's a legal
> >problem with the content of a web-page, I'd expect to have
> it fixed in a few hours or even minutes, not days....
> >No, I'm not a professional with this site - that's why I'd
> allow myself
> >a whole 24 hours. More than that, and I start getting massive guilty
> >feelings.
Donald:
> You're forgetting the intermediate stage in the work routine.
> Where you refer the matter to the organisation's lawyers to
> decide what a) must be done, b) should be done, c) might
> usefully be done d) should not be done. How many months does
> this usually take?
That's later. After the offending item the visiting director spotted and objected to has been taken down. Time from observation to removal - about ten minutes, including three phone calls, one international. Time to replace with something better - months, as you say.
But in this case the whole point is that the legal department have supposedly already done the investigation? And taken something like a year over it, as I recall.
> Jeff has kindly taken on the job of interpreting the highly
> legalistic document so those of us without a mastery or two
> at "Read legal documents" can actually understand what's wanted.
Isn't he wonderful?
Now what we need is something like the "plain English" campaign we've taken for granted for years over here, so that legal documents make sense in the first place.
Powered by hypermail