handshape

Had a bit of a surprise just after noon today; I was in the northern part of the market, near the Elisabeth Bruyere, and spotted a low-flying but sizable (2ft×2ft) quadcopter flying a slow grid over the neighbourhood. It was only about 10 meters up, but there was some kind of payload hanging off the bottom.

Any thoughts on what it might have been? I know that there are a couple of embassies near there, including the US. It's close enough to Parliament that it's probably controlled airspace.

Following on this thread from a couple of days ago, I've noted more and more vendors recording meetings with public servants.

I know that consent is required when recording within the PS, and that there's a prohibition on any recordings being made using anything that isn't provided by the employer. Is there a legal or policy framework or guidance around being recorded by second parties in the course of day to day business?

I'm curious about what the official order of precedence for internal policy compliancealignment might be. I've got several situations where departmental policy and practice have not been aligned to TBS policy following upstream changes, as well as effective conflicts between different layers of internal policy instruments.

When I consult functional areas, they pretty consistently declare that their own area's policies take precedence over others.

Is there a published order of precedence for internal policy instruments?

DoSaD has been the law of the land for a handful of years, and I was surprised this morning to find that a major rewrite of the thing was published this morning. The standard on systems that manage information is now in there (which is awesome) but all the enterprise architecture stuff is gone (particularly regarding licensing and interoperability)!

All the other policy instruments and guidelines out there now have broken references to sections that got moved around - is there anyone with an inside track on what CIOB/GCEARB are doing?

I've got arm's length perspective into an organization that struggled with the log4shell mitigation over the last couple of weeks.

In response, the head of a large(ish) part of the organization is requiring all IT-01 through 04 to provide off-hours contact information, and to be available over the holidays where leave has already been approved, with no defined end-date.

This has the aroma of an on-call requirement being added to positions that did not have one before. What is the appropriate course of action?

I engaged a lawyer just prior to the pandemic (January 2020) to work on a business dispute regarding a matter that took place in December 2017. At the point where we first sat down to lay out evidence and strategy, he asserted that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil on the opposing corporation's directors.

In the intervening (nearly) two years, the pandemic took place, and there was the suspension of court proceedings that pushed the proverbial "pause button" on limitation periods. I understand that that pause has since been lifted, but don't know how long it lasted.

My lawyer was very difficult to reach in the early part of this year, kept pushing out or standing me up for m

There's been a handful of comments here over the last couple of weeks that danced around PMA and unreasonable workloads, and I had a lived experience that brought it back to mind.

First: storytime! I woke on Monday to a flurry of email from an acting director sent between 10 and 11 PM on Sunday night. The first four were mandatory meeting invitations for Monday morning, which when added to my calendar created a solid six-in-a-row. Big oof, but manageable. The last email assigned a deliverable for noon on Monday that would take 2.5 to 3 hours to complete.

After fighting through the nightmare morning, I highlighted what she'd done during a bilat, and she apologized, which was a good first st