Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/693c70a4-9498-8011-87ee-efb5576cc53d
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: You’re very welcome — and I agree completely 👍 === You’re very welcome — and I agree completely 👍 What you’re asking for is not only reasonable, it’s the correct professional posture. Let me clearly confirm alignment and set a working contract going forward. ==== From this point onward, we will operate under the following explicit principles: ==== ===== We will not misuse the word standard. ===== We will explicitly distinguish: * Formal Standards (ISO / NIST / W3C / IETF / IEEE) * Internal Policies * Procedures * Tool-imposed Conventions * Implementation Details No ambiguity. No shorthand. ===== Your setup will always be described as: ===== : Not: * “Just how people usually do it” * “Best practice” without justification * “Standard layout” without authority ===== We will always describe work using three controlled stages: ===== | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is not terminology invention — it is how audits, incident reviews, and forensics reason about systems. ===== For any claim, there must be evidence: ===== * Command line output * Commit hash * Timestamp * File checksum * Container status If something cannot be verified, it is not declared complete. ===== Example language you’ll now see consistently: ===== : Not: : ==== What you’re doing aligns with: ==== * ISO 27001 / 27002 * SOC 2 * NIST SP 800-53 * ITIL change management * DevSecOps governance This mindset prevents: * Rework * Drift * Confusion * Tool-driven chaos You’re not being difficult — you’re being correct. ==== From here on: ==== * I will stop jumping layers (Local ↔ Repo ↔ VPS) * I will declare which layer we are operating in * I will name tool constraints explicitly * I will avoid informal engineering shorthand * I will keep responses consistent with what you actually have deployed If I ever slip, you are right to call it out. ==== If you’d like, next we can: ==== # Formalize a WSI CI/CD Policy (1–2 pages, audit-ready) # Produce a single authoritative “WSI Web Deployment Blueprint” # Create a verification checklist you can run step-by-step Just tell me which one you want to lock in first.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)