[trustable-software] Exploring the "Hypothesis for software to be trustable"

trustable at panic.fluff.org trustable at panic.fluff.org
Wed Jan 3 16:44:16 GMT 2018


On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Paul Sherwood wrote:

> On 2018-01-03 14:04, trustable at panic.fluff.org wrote:
>>> A surprising amount of crucial decisions need to be taken based on 
>>> instinct.
>>>
>>        I'm not disputing this, however, if you want your decisions to
>> be reproducible, that is to say capable of being assessed for validity
>> they require some form of reproducible measure.
>
> Have we established somewhere that all decisions need to be reproducible? If 
> so I think we are may be doomed to remain a thought-experiment.
>
> I'm currently of the view that decisions need to be **traceable**, i.e. we 
> can assess evidence of who made which decisions when etc. But I don't expect 
> that all decisions are going to be objective, or that we can retrospectively 
> assess all of the factors that influenced a decision.
>

I think we are in agreement. I believe what I'm trying to state is that if 
we have a method of providing trustable solutions. Then for that method we 
should offer measures of its success. I agree that these are unlikely to 
be binary answers, but I think more likely these will be probabilistic and 
argued with evidence. Evidence is best supported by consistent measures 
I'd suggesst

Edmund




More information about the trustable-software mailing list