>>> How many of those were you aware of, but were prevented from changing?
>>
>> Only 3, really. (There's about 10 IT-related deficiencies reported.)
> 
> Three is not bad.

Well, no. Suffice it to say that none of the deficiencies are actually 
related to how our computers are set up. They're all related to 
paperwork (or lack thereof).

You might recall that when we moved buildings, the guys from the USA 
came over and basically took over the place for a week, moved everything 
around (despite me telling them, to their faces, that they should stop), 
and then they went home and told me to write up some documentation. 
Apparently the auditors weren't too impressed with the complete lack of 
testing. I wasn't thrilled either, to be honest. But hey, it's not the 
guys from HQ who get moaned at; it's me.

On the other hand, people claim that the regulations are just common 
sense codified on rigorous form, but some of the things these auditors 
want us to do are anything but common sense. For example, just because 
our servers are in a different room now, they want me to "test" them. 
Quite what I'm supposed to test I don't know. I fail to see how picking 
up a server, moving it from A to B, and turning it back on again is 
supposed to change the way it functions, but still...

>> Auditors are scary. ._.
> 
> It is called experience.

I see...

Post a reply to this message