Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: bridge building and discipline
Message-ID: <4563.282e83ea@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 13 May 91 17:17:46 GMT
References: <1259@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> <9105012313.AA23259@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1991May3.142824.208@keinstr.uucp> <1991May3.234349.14026@auto-trol.com> <4504.28267bad@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991May9.053311.800@netcom.COM>
Distribution: na
Lines: 23

In article <1991May9.053311.800@netcom.COM>, jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
[...]
> 
> If someone with an eye on the bottom line determines that undisciplined
> programmers are costing the company money, it is NOT big brotherism to
> impose a more software-engineering-oriented language on them: this is
> called "capitalism".

This is a point that I thought I raised earlier, and on which I  received zero
feedback.  I will paraphrase: The Watts Humphrey (and others) paradigm is that
the process must be measured, not the people executing the process.  Then
whatever is wrong with the process must be fixed.  This implies that
no one is somehow responsible for a failure in the process.  There seems to 
be a furious effort to neglect the reality of this point.  The effort to
collect meaningful metrics data will make it possible to determine if
individual contributors are not meeting project goals.  At what point does the
"bottom-line" person determine the state and fate of this person.  The
paraphrased statement attributed to Humphrey implies never.  This is unreal.

Comments?

GXKambic
standard disclaimer