[trustable-software] We've got this all wrong !
trustable at panic.fluff.org
trustable at panic.fluff.org
Tue Apr 24 11:20:09 BST 2018
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Andrew Banks wrote:
> Iÿÿm wondering if we need to take an additional approach ÿÿ looking at
> the competency (in a formal meaning of the word) of the people doing
> this work:
>
> t.software SHALL be written by t.competent (ie SQEP)
>
Andrew,
my great problem is competent. For example you may have
commercial skippers ticket which states you a competant to skipper a 200m
3000 ton vessel in UK waters. However if you have never done this, though
competent in fact you probably shouldn't.
Recently I've been grand-fathered into a particularly
certification simply because I was involved in the early discussions and
debates, not because I'm necessarily competent or even capable..
Both these tend to point that the definition of competent really
is almost always flawed and though certification for example a driving
license does say that in theory we are capable, in pracitce this may be
useless.
We have another issue with competency, which is for software
engineering in fact we have very little 'science' around what we could
measure to show competancy. Is it the linguistic capability of the
consumption of the compiler or language choice ? Is it around algorthimic
understanding and consumption ? Could be possibly be as flakey as the
definiton of Agile and the processes around things ?
We don't even have an agreed Body of Knowledge around these
subjects. So really don't believe this will fly.
Edmund
--
========================================================================
Edmund J. Sutcliffe Thoughtful Solutions; Creatively
<edmunds at panic.fluff.org> Implemented and Communicated
<http://panic.fluff.org> +44 (0) 7976 938841
More information about the trustable-software
mailing list