JISCMail - RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK Archives

Rob Hutton

Information Governance and Assurance Co-ordinator

Children's Services

Central Bedfordshire Council Watling House, High Street North, Dunstable, LU6 1LF | Telephone: 0300 300 5520 | Email: rob.[log in to unmask]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information security classification* of this email: Not Protected

*Information security definitions:

Restricted - Sensitive Data only to be sent via secure email

Protected - Contains personal data covered by the Data Protection Act

Not protected - General Data

I am perplexed: this and other contributions seem to be based on an assumption that “version 1.0 means final”. Why so?

Actually, many version numbering schemes rely on the notion that of major and minor revisions. Just one example: the latest published (i.e. approved) e-GMS (a UK government publication) is at v3.1. This numbering scheme is completely incompatible with the idea that “version 1.0 means final” – but it is also much better. Approval and versioning are simply two different concepts.

So, again I ask why this assumption exists… Where does it come from? Who says?

Marc Fresko

From: The Information and Records Management Society mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: 02 July 2013 19:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: [RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK] Query re. Version Control & taking documents through a Committee Process

meant to send to the list

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK] Query re. Version Control & taking documents through a Committee Process
To: Heather Jack <[log in to unmask]>

I agree with heather. v0.4 gets sent up for approval once it is approved it becomes v1.0 and that is reflected in the table.
0.4 sent to committee for review and approval <date>
v1.0 approved by committee <date>

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Heather Jack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Sarah,

Lawrence said- “you can either treat it as v .05 or v1 of the approved.” I wouldn’t have thought the final approved version would continue on the 0.X series. In my view v0.4 goes to committee for formal approval – and if approved, become v1.0 – signifying final approved status – and presumably if it is not approved and subject to further review and approval, will keep upping to 0.X until it is finally reaches v1.0 - formally approved.

--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
http://twitter.com/RAINbyte
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAINbyte/
http://paper.li/RAINbyte/rainbyte
http://pinterest.com/pakurilecz/archives/
http://pinterest.com/pakurilecz/records-management/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterakurilecz
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers