InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 19 Jun 2013 22:26:45 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxElliot,I just finished a year long automation project and I had to put everything in temp tables and variables because I don't have write access to the database.Well, anyway thanks for the advice Elliot, I appreciate it!-Michelle :-)Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:49:37 GMTmm-1009269http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxI think the having the rights discussion is often silly. I was a developer that had rights to very nearly every prod server, and rarely ever used them, and when I did it was usually because we had a down or near down condition and I couldn't find another warm body to help me.But as long as you follow your documented change control process you should be good. Very likely the process will only handle the deployment to production and not anything about the processes (other than testing) that came before. So you designing and implementing should not be a problem..CEWIITue, 06 Oct 2009 15:42:37 GMTElliott Whitlowhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspx[quote][b]Elliott W (10/6/2009)[/b][hr]You are part of a publically traded company right?You can often get seperation of duties by being the requestor of the change and the verifier, but not the implementor. What that means is that you don't actually do the deployment, you can help someone else but the have to be the ones doing it.Also what is your change control process for putting things into production, if you are subject to SOX you should have a written policy that is audited. You chould have someone internally who is intimate with this process.CEWII[/quote]Well, they haven't really subjected me to a change control process because I'm not in IT. But that's a good point, I should have my boss intiate a process. Thanks for pointing that out...-Michelle :-)Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:36:29 GMTmm-1009269http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxYou are part of a publically traded company right? Or a wholly-owned subsidiary of one? Otherwise SOX is an optional.. Some companies have chosen to act like they are required to operate in SOX compliance as a way to have better control. I'm just wondering if yours is one of those..You can often get seperation of duties by being the requestor of the change and the verifier, but not the implementor. What that means is that you don't actually do the deployment, you can help someone else but the have to be the ones doing it.Also what is your change control process for putting things into production, if you are subject to SOX you should have a written policy that is audited. You chould have someone internally who is intimate with this process.CEWIITue, 06 Oct 2009 15:23:33 GMTElliott Whitlowhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxThanks bitbucket,I do have some knowledge because I used to work with QA but that's when I was in IT.I don't have access to financial informationThanks-Michelle :-)Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:22:50 GMTmm-1009269http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxSo much depends on what access you have or could have to the companies accounting system.... or any other system that directly or indirectly would impact on the companies financial statements. My only suggestion is talk or suggest to your supervisor that your activities be reviewed by either the companies accounting firm and or attorney.In the interim period have your requirement documents formal approved by your supervisor.Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:10:36 GMTbitbucket-25253http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic798685-161-1.aspxHello!I'm a developer and I write my own requirements and I have read access to production servers.Am I violating SOX guidelines by writing my own requirements and then doing the development? I'm really unsure how to interpret SOX since I'm an IT person but technically, I'm not in the IT department.Can somebody please help me understand?Thank you very much!-Michelle :-)Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:07:08 GMTmm-1009269