Re: Hokay, I officially give up...

On Fri, 22 May 2009, Dave Stagner wrote:
> On 5/22/09, Mathieu Bouchard <matju-i8w/[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, why do you insist on calling it "barely works" instead of "meeting
>> requirements"?
> Because then it wouldn't be cute and clever. :}  A hip, snarky posture
> is good marketing in the 21st century, y'know.

I've been snarky since before 21st century, but my concern is that, when 
I'm finally growing out of it, am I becoming _behind_ my time, or ahead? 
Or then, in that case, is there any difference between being behind and 
being ahead?

> But really, I do think there's a valid distinction here, between "barely 
> works" and "works well". We imagine our software that meets requirements 
> working well, but it usually doesn't.

This is because you shift "works well" to be higher than "meets 
requirements" because you are trying to cope with situations in which 
you'd personally make the requirement list longer than your boss does.

> Take the failover example... when the failover requirement is made, it's 
> envisioned as a transparent, reliable system that could be handled by 
> second-shift support staff using a well-documented procedure. The 
> reality is probably that failover can work, but only with the first-line 
> administrators debugging and fixing real-world details. Battle plans 
> rarely survive first contact with the enemy.

If the failover can't work with second-shift support staff, then the 
failover does not meet the requirements, even if your boss evaluates that 
it already does. It is a problem with assessing the work done as _really_ 
meeting requirements, and not one with the requirements not being 
enough... perhaps there is a problem with actual wording of requirements, 
self-contradictions, broken assumptions (or assumptions that will be 
broken).

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec