Finally! All will be happy to know that I've dug back to the
beginning of this morning's crop of messages :-)
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But if you do not make a credible case that something is being
overlooked, nobody is going to waste time on your proposed process
to look for things that are being overlooked.
I work in the astronomical community. Many long, long years ago, when
this issue was first broached, we started vetting issues pertaining to
astronomy. This change would surely cost us millions of dollars.
Criticizing the one group who have taken the time to look is rather
brazen.
You have mentioned planes, trains, shipping, power and military
applications. I gather you have experience with these projects.
Somehow it is my job to vet your systems from the outside? At the
very least, grep the source for terms like "DUT1" to search for the
Y2K-like issues. This won't catch the implicit dependencies on Earth
orientation. Perhaps there are none. If so, a risk analysis should
be straightforward. That isn't an argument to skip it.
Proposing red tape commisions in the absence of evidence of their
need, is a widely recognized stalling tactic.
Again, I find it truly bizarre that after all my previous rhetorical
gambits, the one topic that gets a rise out of the group is a simple,
heartfelt suggestion that proper system engineering practices be
followed.
System engineering != red tape
Far from stalling, separating problem definition and requirements
discovery from a tradeoff study of possible solutions is the fastest
way to proceed.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
