[trustable-software] Exploring the "Hypothesis for software to be trustable"
paul.sherwood at codethink.co.uk
Wed Jan 3 12:15:37 GMT 2018
On 2018-01-03 11:20, trustable at panic.fluff.org wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Paul Sherwood wrote:
>> Edmund - so far I haven't concluded that we need to be able to measure
>> everything. If you believe that we *do* need to measure something like
>> this, can you justify why?
> So I believe that without the ability to measure we are unable
> evaluate change and so we cannot assess risk or uncertainty.
Not true, IMO. Animals have been assessing risk/uncertainty
instinctively for millennia, without 'the ability to measure'.
A surprising amount of crucial decisions need to be taken based on
> To quote a conversation elsewhere discussing the following volume
> " 1. Management cares about measurements because measurements inform
> uncertain decisions.
Measurements can inform. Often they misinform.
> 2. For any decision or set of decisions, there are a large
> of things to measure and ways to measure them but perfect
> is rarely a realistic option.
> 3. Therefore, management needs a method to analyze options for
> uncertainty about decisions. "
OK, but it doesn't work for everything, and IME management cannot reply
entirely on any 'method'. We have to make decisions in the presence of
> I'd make the point that though designing experiments which allow us to
> measure things can sometimes be complex, without being able to do this
> we are unable to confirm our findings and verify that the cause of
> aberrant behaviour in the systems or the construction of the systems.
If you're holding to the line that we have to measure everything, I'm
More information about the trustable-software