On Sat, 07 Jan 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 08:08 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Exactly. And, please correct me if I got it wrong, you were arguing that the > > FD check done after the AM report is good enough for the DAM to just have a > > cursory glance over the report before approving it. And that "two hours" is > > a through check. > > > > I don't agree with either idea. Where's the incongruency? > > If I understand you correctly, you think that after many weeks (!) of AM > checking, plus your 8 hours to write an AM report; then a 8-10 hours FD > check is mandated plus a full DAM screening?
No. I don't know the exact kind of problems the FD check tries to root out, so I am not arguing it should take 8h. All I said is that 2h is IMHO quite a pathetic figure for a through _DAM_ check, and that I spent more than that doing pure background checking as an AM. I am also going to state right on that the many weeks of AM checking are not many weeks worth of man hours (when I say 8h, I mean 8 men-hours). I *seriously* doubt any AM is spending many weeks worth of men-hours on any single NM. If they do, something is quite wrong. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
