Re: Time Values

Subject: Re: Time Values
From: "Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:47:14 -0400

Rebecca wrote:
...
> In this case, as sensitive to the gender issues as I am, the legal clarity
> of the term MUST take priority, and the gender-sensitive term
> would HAVE to be clearly defined, because it is non-standard.
>
> So in short, whoever it was who started all of this, I'd
> check with your legal counsel to find out their take on the situation.
> Because it really could have dire legal ramifications if handled wrong.

I might suggest that the term "man-month" might lack legal clarity as well.
Considering issues like holidays and length of work day, I would not sign
a contract expressed in "man-months" without clarification. That clarification
might be a definition in a labor law dictionary or something, I Am Not A
Lawyer, and I don't know. But I'd want that clarification.

---
Office:
mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Home:
nax -at- execpc -dot- com


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth? -Reply
Next by Author: Re: Political Correctness Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth?
Previous by Thread: Re: Time Values
Next by Thread: Re: Time Values


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads