[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

(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

[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

Reply to: