I work as a backend developer in a financial organisation and the organisation has demanded that we migrate all our technical documentation (e.g. info about batches like the names and their scheduling and dependencies, the way calculations are done, which transactional systems are connected with the batches, etc.) to a new -transparent- system. I'm looking for guidelines, principles, possibly risk assessment, about sharing of technical documentation to a wide audience. I have some reservatons about whether it is such a good idea to make everthing transparent to everyone (especially some who might want to do harm now or in the future), but right now my reservations are based on gut feelings and not backed up with arguments.

Does anyne has some ideas and/or links to additional info which can help me in theorising about the best approach?

PS: the current system for the documentation is only accessible to the teams of our own business unit. The new system would be accessible to much more business units and autorisation can only be done on individual users, not on groups. Which makes autorisation actually very hard to administrate. Access based on role/group is no option.

  • I get downvotes on this post but I don't know why, and as such I can't make it better... Anyone any suggestions? – cybork May 10 '18 at 9:06
  • 4
    I did not downvote but from what I see, I think the question is highly generalised and cannot be answered as the scope is too huge. Think of it from the perspective of a person who is going to answer. There is no idea about what document you are planning to share, what are the details that you are trying to share etc. If you edit your question to be more specific, you might have better luck. – shyam May 10 '18 at 9:40
  • Don't share proprietary information. – Robert Harvey May 10 '18 at 14:10
  • Question concerns project management not software engineering – Martin Spamer May 10 '18 at 22:18

In general technical documentation reveals certain aspects of the design of a system. In every place I've worked, these documents are restricted as a minimum and on occasion, classed as confidential/strictly confidential.

Where there are classification levels, it goes without saying that the treatment of such materials should be made crystal clear to all employees who may come into contact with it.

Even in the absence of all this, the default option is that individual users have to be authorised which sounds perfectly reasonable.

Thus your question boils down to whether employees who are given access are made sufficiently aware of their responsibilities with regards to disclosure.

If I might read between the lines (from my own personal experience), I sense your reticence is that all this could draw undue scrutiny of the solutions in place, a barrage of questions and requests for help as to how various systems could be used and abused beyond their initial scope. This may be the intention of the company, it is hard to say. Certainly any system worth its salt has valuable (and possibly highly portable) features that could be re-used elsewhere. It is difficult to guess the import of such a move from your question.

  • Thanks Robbie! I'm not a native English speaker and have difficulty with interpreting "'(...) these documents are restricted as a minimum and (...)" >> Do you mean 'minimal restriction was applied', or 'as a minimum a restriction was applied'? PS: I think the company's intent is to outsource the document-system that is currently in place and thus save costs by the use of the other system that is already in use. – cybork May 10 '18 at 22:02
  • @cybork By this I mean that technical documents are not made available for public consumption by default and only those who require the information therein inside the organisation have access to it. – Robbie Dee May 11 '18 at 7:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.