[trustable-software] The Elephant In the Elevator Pitch

[AMANDA BROCK]

Thanks Paul, 

I would suggest that this needs to include reference the legal, compliance and insurance participation in the process, perhaps something along the lines of:

“The Trustable Software Engineering project is working with communities of engineers, lawyers and experts in all aspects of software engineering to establish a broadly useful framework for examining and comparing evidence-based claims about what would make software engineered “trustable”.

IMHO, the use of trustable by Paul S is not in fact circular as the project (which is one thing) is working to establish both what trustable will mean (which is distinct from the project and an output of the project) and how meeting that level of being "trustable” can be evidenced in a robust and defensible way.  Considering what “trustable” ought to be considered to be, is something for the project to establish in a defensible way over time based on the outputs of our community’s input. In fact, what it takes to be “trustable" may not be the same in all circumstances…..

So taking Paul S’s wording how about something like: 

"If the elevator that we are in was to fall and crash through the floor due to mechanical or civil engineering failure, our families and friends would expect that subsequently it would be possible to establish what had gone wrong, which standards and laws were broken, and who was accountable.

If the same accident was to happen as a result of a problem in the software that controls a fleet of elevators in a building, it is extremely unlikely that we could establish what requirements applied, let alone who was accountable.

Almost all high-tech elevator pitches over the last few decades have been built on immature industry practices which provide no evidence to justify our trust. The Trustable Software Engineering project is working with communities of engineers, lawyers, insurers and experts in all aspects of software development to establish a broadly useful framework for examining and comparing evidence-based claims about risk and what would make the software engineered “trustable”.”

But as I make this 158 words it clearly needs more input :)

Cheers

Amanda

Amanda Brock
CEO, Trustable
www.trustable.io
@trustableio
+44(0)7718516954

> On 29 Mar 2019, at 10:37, Paul Albertella <paul.albertella at codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Mar, 2019 at 10:18 AM, Edmund J. Sutcliffe <trustable at panic.fluff.org> wrote:
>> 
>> So here you've defined Trustable as Trustable. That's a circular argument fail!
> 
> Here's my attempt at 'de-circularising' it:
> 
> "The Trustable Software project is working with engineers, regulators and sponsors to establish a broadly useful framework for examining and comparing claims about why we should trust software, by evaluating the available evidence to see whether it supports those claims."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> trustable-software mailing list
> trustable-software at lists.trustable.io
> https://lists.trustable.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/trustable-software

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/trustable-software/attachments/20190330/dc91d0e4/attachment-0001.html>