| 1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 29/09/2015 22:19, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 29 September 2015 22:00:58 CEST, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl <at> |
| 6 |
libertytrek.org> wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> > Most companies I deal with wouldn't even let the people responsible for |
| 9 |
the databases to reconfigure the |
| 10 |
> storage for said database directly. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I agree with Joost, needing access to all your DNS is off-the-wall. Any |
| 13 |
> changes they need done, and they will be few, can be given to you as a |
| 14 |
> support ticket for action just like everyone else gets to do. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I would also have them specify exactly in their proposal what they |
| 17 |
> intend to do, with full engineering. Any sane service provider will do |
| 18 |
> that in their tender, and yours looks like a rather big tender. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Why cannot they just ask you guys to make the DNS changes they need, |
| 21 |
transient or permanent. That way you stay in the loop on what they are doing |
| 22 |
and participate with the upgrade. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Another point of concern. When radically changing infrastructure like this, |
| 26 |
why not just do the entire thing under a new DNS and have both online for a |
| 27 |
while, until the new site if vetted and the actual real bugs worked out? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Also, your company should force this contractor to take a large liability |
| 30 |
policy, in the name of your company, should things go really fubar.... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
caveat emptor! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
hth, |
| 36 |
James |
Archives