Re: a system that fails spectacularly
Steve Allen said: This became a long-running joke in the morris dance community. A few years back some English town councils decided to become ISO 9000 compliant. That required them to ascertain that all of their sub-contractors were also compliant. Actually, it does nothing of the sort. An organisation going for qualification must set up an ISO 9000 boundary. Everything inside must conform to the processes, so anything coming in through the boundary must be assessed each time it comes in. The boundary can go around more than one organisation. So many organisations find it easier to force their suppliers and sub-contractors inside the boundary than to deal with stuff coming in. In other words, it's easier to only buy widgets from ISO 9000 compliant suppliers than to provide an inbound widget quality test department. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel:+44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax:+44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc||
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
M. Warner Losh said: * A second is represented by an integer from 0 to 61; [...] but this specification follows the date and time conventions for ISO C. Of course, ISO C fixed this misunderstanding many years ago. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel:+44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax:+44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc||
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: boundary than to deal with stuff coming in. In other words, it's easier to only buy widgets from ISO 9000 compliant suppliers than to provide an inbound widget quality test department. From what I understand from some of the recent emails, you would not have to provide an inbound widget quality test department, but rather an inbound widget manufacturer's quality control procedure test department. This is to keep consistency with the model that ISO9000 compliance means your products can be crap as long as you document how you arrive at that assessment. Pete.
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On 9 Dec 2005 at 10:42, David Harper wrote: On the other hand, the idea of ISO 9000 compliant Morris dancers is a very funny one. Presumably, they'd have to standardise the size of their pig's bladders. There's a Monty Python sketch just waiting to be written. I'm guessing that their level of ISO 9000 compliance falls in inverse proportion to the amount of beer they drink. As does their likelihood of observing leap seconds correctly. But if they fail to observe the leap second properly, the timing and synchronization of the dancers will be off, and they might collide catastrophically into one another! We must fix this danger right away! -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Some of us have been trying to drive this point though for some time: 99.99% of all programmers have no idea what a leap-second is. And these are the people who program the technology that runs our civilization. The confusion runs deeper than that. I discovered last year that implementations of Java up to and including Java 1.3 did not implement the correct daylight saving time rules for the United Kingdom during the period between 27 October 1968 and 31 October 1971 when the U.K. kept its clocks permanently one hour ahead of GMT and called this British Standard Time. The daylight saving time rules were implemented as little more than a blanket starts on the last Sunday in March, ends on the last Sunday in October prescription, with no provision for irregularities such as BStandardT. As a result, Java programs would assume that the U.K. was keeping GMT during the winter months of 1968/9, 1969/70 and 1970/1 when in fact the clocks were an hour ahead. This error was fixed in Java 1.4, when a rather more sophisticated mechanism was added for handling daylight saving time rules, based upon the Unix zoneinfo database, which does know about the irregularities and exceptions. When even Sun Microsystems can make this kind of mistake, with all of the resources at its disposal, Joe or Jane Programmer working for a small company can be forgiven for not being familiar with the arcane world of leap seconds. There are, after all, only 102 of us on this mailing list :-) David Harper -- Dr David Harper Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, England Tel: 01223 834244 Fax: 494919 http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/adh/
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes: On Dec 7, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: ISO9000 certification only means that you have documented your quality assurance process. There is no requirement that your documentation pertains to or results in a quality product. That was kind of my point, too. We have standards bodies that don't promulgate their standards. [...] You need to look even further down the foodchain, starting from the bottom: * First comes people who make buying decisions based on price. * Then comes engineers who are only in it for the money. * Then comes product managers cutting corners to push out a cheap product early. * Then comes companies who only care about money The kind of people who even care enough to think about participating in standards writing, are leagues above those four by the simple fact that they actually do care in the first place. And as we all know from the standards we work with, even those people are pretty underperforming to begin with. In an ideal world, I would love to educate them all about the errors of their ways, but I'm too old to seriously contemplate such a project. Leapseconds are simply too technically tricky for the species we are dealing with. They are OK if confined to science labs, but out in the real world where people think McDonalds food does not make you fat leap seconds are just no feasible. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Steve Allen wrote: Finally we begin to see folks stand up and identify their systems as having abysmally failed to implement the UTC standard. http://www.acrelectronics.com/alerts/leap.htm In particular, see their technical bulletin http://www.acrelectronics.com/alerts/Technical%20Bulletin%202005-12%20_Leap-Second_%20V1_1.pdf They indicate that one must physically disconnect the unit in order to get it to work after the leap second. I hardly understand how it is reasonably possible to use a GPS-derived UTC without taking into account the leap second information from the GPS navigation message. Unless the unit gets the UTC-GPS offset from the receiver just once at hardboot time and then forget about leap secs... Puzzling. -- Francois Meyer Tel : (+33) 3 81 66 69 27 Fax : 3 81 66 69 44 Observatoire de Besancon - BP1615 - 25010 Besancon cedex - FRANCE Université de Franche-Comté ** CNRS UMR 6091 *
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Dec 6, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Steve Allen wrote:Finally we begin to see folks stand up and identify their systems as having abysmally failed to implement the UTC standard. http://www.acrelectronics.com/alerts/leap.htmEven more remarkably, they proudly proclaim: "The quality systems of this facility have been registered by UL to the ISO 9000 Series Standards."So we have a company that manufactures "a complete line of safety and survival products" (!) that are precisely intended to convey UTC as a primary function of the devices. This company claims to have followed an international standard focused on achieving quality control through best practices in management.I applaud the company's decision to go public in advance. However, it seems that one of two things must be true. Either the fact that the letter is dated December 5, 2005 indicates that they just now got around to acting on the July, 2005 announcement of the upcoming leap second - or, they acted upon this in a more timely fashion and decided to embargo the announcement until the latest plausible moment at which it would be possible for their lawyers to later argue timely notification of their customers. I am copying this message to John Bell, the company's indicated contact for this issue, for his comment.They indicate that one must physically disconnect the unit in order to get it to work after the leap second.And the proponents of a change to the UTC standard are undoubtedly going to assemble a number of such phantasmogorical reports in "support" of their position. Why bother to change an international standard for the naive and cynical perceived benefit of commercial interests when those interests can't even be bothered to implement the standard in the first place?I don't know whether to be more embarrassed for the company or for the international standards process. How many companies claim ISO 9000 conformance? If they don't comprehend the requirements of international standards pertaining to their products, how likely is it that they comprehend their customers' requirements? Where in this is the responsibility of the ITU to promulgate the UTC standard? What is the absolutely vast responsibility of ISO in claiming to offer a worldwide standard in quality control?And what exactly is the liability of the Underwriting Laboratory in such a case? "UL is the trusted source across the globe for product compliance." Are we to infer any better compliance of the corporate world with SI standards, for instance, than with the UTC standard?Clearly astronomers are the fall guys. RightRob SeamanNational Optical Astronomy Observatory
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
Rob Seaman wrote: I don't know whether to be more embarrassed for the company or for the international standards process. How many companies claim ISO 9000 conformance? If they don't comprehend the requirements of international standards pertaining to their products, how likely is it that they comprehend their customers' requirements? I am reminded of the Dilbert cartoon from way back when, in which the pointy-haired boss is talking to a potential customer. Customer: Your product looks good, but you can't be our supplier unless yoru company is ISO 9000 certified. PHB: So ... you don't care how bad our internal processes are, as long as they're well-documented and used consistently. Customer: That's right. PHB: Our documented process says I must now laugh in your face and double our price. I think says everything you need to know about ISO 9000 in the real world. David Harper -- Dr David Harper Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, England Tel: 01223 834244 Fax: 494919 http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/adh/
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
Rob Seaman wrote on 2005-12-07 13:59 UTC: http://www.acrelectronics.com/alerts/leap.htm Even more remarkably, they proudly proclaim: The quality systems of this facility have been registered by UL to the ISO 9000 Series Standards. So we have a company that manufactures a complete line of safety and survival products (!) that are precisely intended to convey UTC as a primary function of the devices. This company claims to have followed an international standard focused on achieving quality control through best practices in management. As a general-purpose management standard, ISO 9001 obviously says nothing about how you have to handle leap seconds. ISO 9001 does not even specify any particular level of quality. All it does is tell you how you must document what level of quality you are producing and what you do to make sure it remains the same for all instances of the same product. Customers could in theory asked the company to review their quality control documentation, and if they had found that no adequate leap-second test is part of their quality control process, then they would have known what (not) to expect. The big problem with the ISO 9000 standards is that they do not require manufacturers to make all their quality-control procedures easily downloadable from their web site. As a result, hardly any customer ever gets a chance to look at all this otherwise perfectly sensible documentation. The whole problem with ISO 9001 and friends is that they originated in the military market. There, customers are far too nervous about their enemies reading the quality control manuals of their kit. The resulting secrecy surrounding the ISO 9001 documentation has de-facto rendered the entire idea utterly useless. It could be easily fixed by adding a publication requirement to the ISO 9000 certification process, but I doubt that anyone other than civilian customers would want that. And these standards are not written by civilian customers. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Wed 2005-12-07T06:59:39 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ: it seems that one of two things must be true. Either the fact that the letter is dated December 5, 2005 indicates that they just now got around to acting on the July, 2005 announcement of the upcoming leap second - or, they acted upon this in a more timely fashion and decided to embargo the announcement until the latest plausible moment at which it would be possible for their lawyers to later argue timely notification of their customers. ACR is not alone, see Saab, who announced much earlier http://www.transpondertech.se/node1924.asp?intContentID=3197 also reported by Canada http://www.ican.nf.net/R4update.htm also reported by USCG http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/docs/Saab505.pdf http://www.uscg.mil/d14/units/feact/images/safety%20alert.pdf Google is your friend. -- Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99858 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06014 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
Upon rereading my message, I'd like to backpedal a bit. I did not intend to assert any knowledge or comprehension (or even opinion) about the company's internal operations and decision-making process. We would likely all be interested, however, if Mr. Bell were to comment on the delay between the July 2005 announcement of the upcoming leap second and the December reaction of the company to same. For instance, are such leap second announcements in fact conveyed in a timely fashion to the commercial community? Mr. Bell should also be aware that this message is being distributed to several dozen members of an internet mailing list that has existed for half a dozen years precisely to discuss leap second related issues and the definition of Coordinated Universal Time. The archives for that mailing list are available from: http://rom.usno.navy.mil/archives/leapsecs.html I was not being ironic in applauding this company's decision to make a public statement on the issue. The issues involved are much larger than any individual company. Blaming poor Mother Earth, however, for her middle-aged unsteadiness in the face of the laws of physics would seem rather - well - unkind. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Wed 2005-12-07T14:56:35 +, Markus Kuhn hath writ: As a general-purpose management standard, ISO 9001 obviously says nothing about how you have to handle leap seconds. ISO 9001 does not even specify any particular level of quality. All it does is tell you how you must document what level of quality you are producing and what you do to make sure it remains the same for all instances of the same product. This became a long-running joke in the morris dance community. A few years back some English town councils decided to become ISO 9000 compliant. That required them to ascertain that all of their sub-contractors were also compliant. This extended to morris sides who were to be remunerated for dancing their traditional dances outside pubs at town festivals. Despite having done such for uncounted decades, the morris side leaders suddenly had to fill out forms describing their own quality control processes. Most of those forms came back to the town council stained with beer and chips. -- Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99858 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06014 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
- Original Message - From: Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:01 AM Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] a system that fails spectacularly On Wed 2005-12-07T06:59:39 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ: it seems that one of two things must be true. Either the fact that the letter is dated December 5, 2005 indicates that they just now got around to acting on the July, 2005 announcement of the upcoming leap second - or, they acted upon this in a more timely fashion and decided to embargo the announcement until the latest plausible moment at which it would be possible for their lawyers to later argue timely notification of their customers. ACR is not alone, see Saab, who announced much earlier http://www.transpondertech.se/node1924.asp?intContentID=3197 also reported by Canada http://www.ican.nf.net/R4update.htm And you've gotta love the interpretation of UTC as Universal Time Code in the Canadian report. If they don't understand what UTC is, or at the very least understand that their users are going to be confused by their misleading use of the acronym, it's hardly a surprise that a leap second is going to pull the rug off their code and expose the bugs they've swept underneath it. Brian Garrett
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Garrett writes: And you've gotta love the interpretation of UTC as Universal Time Code in the Canadian report. If they don't understand what UTC is, or at the very least understand that their users are going to be confused by their misleading use of the acronym, it's hardly a surprise that a leap second is going to pull the rug off their code and expose the bugs they've swept underneath it. Some of us have been trying to drive this point though for some time: 99.99% of all programmers have no idea what a leap-second is. And these are the people who program the technology that runs our civilization. Think about it next time you press a button. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Re: a system that fails spectacularly
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:35:04 +, David Harper [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Rob Seaman wrote: I don't know whether to be more embarrassed for the company or for the international standards process. How many companies claim ISO 9000 conformance? If they don't comprehend the requirements of international standards pertaining to their products, how likely is it that they comprehend their customers' requirements? I am reminded of the Dilbert cartoon from way back when, in which the pointy-haired boss is talking to a potential customer. Customer: Your product looks good, but you can't be our supplier unless yoru company is ISO 9000 certified. PHB: So ... you don't care how bad our internal processes are, as long as they're well-documented and used consistently. Customer: That's right. PHB: Our documented process says I must now laugh in your face and double our price. I think says everything you need to know about ISO 9000 in the real world. David Harper Anyone know where I can get a copy of this Dilbert cartoon? I've been asked to do some software testing and validation using ISO 9000 certified processes (whatever that means) and would love to use this as the first slide in my presentation... -- Conrad __ Stellar Science Ltd. Co. - Stellar Scientific Software Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-877-480-4950 www.stellarscience.com
