Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!idallen
From: idallen@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: opportunities, women
Message-ID: <16067@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 02:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.16067
Posted: Mon Aug  5 02:02:36 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 07:45:24 EDT
References: <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5788@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath can.politics:707 net.women:6797

> The impossibility of administering a program properly is a valid argument
> against instituting it.   - Henry Spencer

Valid, perhaps; but not a strong argument.  Nothing can be done perfectly
or "properly".  I'd rather set a good goal and try to reach it than to
give up before starting because I know I won't be perfect.  I see this
defeatist attitude in software design all the time -- people don't stop
to figure out what they really need; they only think ahead to what they
can program in time.  Without a (possibly unattainable) goal to work
toward, it's easy to think you're making progress simply by changing
things.  But perhaps the real answer lies in the opposite direction.
The impossible goal at least provides a direction, a metric that makes
it easier to decide "Does such-and-such a change bring us closer to our
goal?"  Democracy is not perfect, and we can't administer it "properly",
but I think I like the model.
-- 
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo