Re: unreproducable bugs
"Michael K. Edwards" <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <rw@shadow.org.uk> wrote:
>> > I am having a hard time reading this as anything but a non sequitur.
>>
>> Umm; it follows more from Manoj's comment than yours.
>
> Ah. OK.
Should have sent two postings :->
>
>> > Personally, I prefer for a solution to be demonstrated to work, both
>> > socially and technically, before it is enshrined in policy. Drafts
>> > are, of course, welcome at any stage. "Rough consensus and running
>> > code." YMMV.
>>
>> You scale an organisation, I understand, by removing the *need* for
>> everyone in it to be a genius at everything it does.
>
> Bingo! You also take care not to formalize unduly, or you get a
> sclerotic bureaucracy.
Given the difficulty of getting agreement in this place, I think that
unlikely.
(As a practicing SubGenius, I like to think of the "ornery, cussing
Debian", up there with the Two-Fisted Jesus, and the Butting
Buddha. Others may have other views)
>
>> Hence the comment about the US army: "designed by genius to be run by
>> sergeants".
>
> As a close associate of several sergeants in the US Army, I question
> only the "designed by genius" part. Given what armies do for a
> living, Darwinian selection is probably also a factor. :-)
Helps. The British Army likes to send officers out in front - produces
lots of dead heroes in the upper classes, as well as reducing incidence
of fragging...
By the way, a spot of Google produces:
Child (1984) cited A machine designed by geniuses to be run by idiots,
Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny, on the organization of the wartime US
Navy.
[snip sane remarks]
>>
>> Exactly: that and an indent script in the checkin routine remove any
>> issue.
>
> As long as it's purely advisory, please -- no tool is perfect
> (although TeX is damn close).
>
>> See how that compares to policy, which is hopefully implemented in such
>> a way as to be mechanically testable?
>
> To within certain limits, as demonstrated by lintian and linda -- up
> there with dpkg and debhelper in the pantheon of Debian's
> contributions to the world. Not quite on par with the DFSG, but
> that's only to be expected; the DFSG is not intended to be testable by
> a machine that is less than Turing-complete. :-)
I get asked from time to time by academics for interesting projects for
their students. I think I now have another:
Implement a system capable of using standard AI techniques to process
the (a) existing judgements and (b) content of debian.legal such that it
can issue plausible analysis of a new software license...
cheers, Rich.
>
> Cheers,
> - Michael
>
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
technical director 251 Liverpool Road |
need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
Reply to: