Is it necessary to use the terms "weakness," "significant weakness" and "deficiency" when communicating during FAR Part 15 discussions?

[joel hoffman]

22 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes. That has already been said, and is more than enough said. Thank you.

The topic of this thread is:

That topic has been addressed. Do you want to say more about that? If so, please do. If not, then off-topic commentary is just blah-blah-blah and is unwelcome, because it often causes confusion, as we have seen so many times.

No, I addressed the original topic, which was a question. Didn’t know it was limited to the first ones to answer.

 Sorry for also suggesting that effective discussions also go beyond simply identifying “problems”.

I also mentioned a common hesitancy to avoid more than the minimum stated discussion requirements and a possible historical source. Sorry.

Wasn’t intending to cause any further debate.

I edited my previous posts. 

[Vern Edwards]

@joel hoffmanWell, you've probably seen that I edited my post and you responded to an earlier version. Sorry about that.

No need to apologize. I just hate it when threads "go wild". More often than not it causes confusion.

Thanks for responding.

[joel hoffman]

32 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes. That has already been said, and is more than enough said, unless you want to explain "perhaps."

It is “necessary” to address “significant weaknesses” and “deficiencies” during “discussions” but I suppose one could avoid labeling them as such, reference FAR 15.307 (d) (3).