Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: A Cynic's Guide, part 1 Message-ID: <5340@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 88 04:18:18 GMT References: <5313@utah-cs.UUCP> <302@buckaroo.SW.MCC.COM> <5321@utah-cs.UUCP> <1692@desint.UUCP> <5335@utah-cs.UUCP> <5411@well.UUCP> Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Distribution: na Organization: PASS Research Group Lines: 72 In article <5411@well.UUCP> rmac@well.UUCP (Robert J. McIlree) writes: >[...] "Whistleblowing" pertains to those who >are committing crimes, like felonies, against their employers, the >government, etc. I didn't realize that "whistleblowing" was so narrowly construed. What do you call it if only civil statutes apply? Is a civil engineer who knowingly specifies cheaper but unsafe materials in a building (which then collapses as a result) only touchable via lawsuits? Is someone who publicizes the engineer's misdeeds a nasty fink or a public hero? Would Roger Boisjoly (the Challenger almost-whistleblower) have been a fink? > 2) In trumpeting so-snd-so as incompetent, so-and-so probably > has some very nice legal avenues to persue against the > "whistleblower" (I'd use a better term here, how about > "fink" or stool pidgeon"?). [...] Libel and slander > come to mind right away. If I recall my vague acquaintance with the law correctly, the truth is never considered libelous. "X is incompetent" is not a provable statement. But "X omitted range checks in critical code" or "Y released product Z 4.0 with 54 known bugs, one of which corrupts a PC's hard disk" are statements whose truth can be tested objectively. > I, for one, would never hire the fink because, in the > absense of criminal activity as defined by law, he > could "blow his whistle" on me, for as small a reason > as disagreeing with my management or technical styles. Even as a mere student in the ivory towers of academe, I hear all kinds of stuff about who screwed up and why. Some of it is silly stuff about management style, and some of it is more serious. I would probably prefer to hire the "fink", at least if the "finking" was all factual, because I would know that this person has enough of a sense of responsibility to stand up to me, if I were to be tempted to do something wrong. The factualness is important; witch-hunts come about when rumors are given more weight than provable allegations. >As to your reference for ACM or IEEE to become policemen over our >profession, I for one do not pay dues to these organizations so >that the profession may be purged of your view of incompetent >individuals. Doesn't have to be "my" views - there is plenty of "accepted wisdom" in the field. ACM is actually not an appropriate organization anyhow, since it is "scientific" rather than "professional" like IEEE. IEEE could help implement licensing - I think some people have been working on it (anybody know for sure?). Is there any reason why software engineers should be exempt from the sort of licensing requirements found in other fields? >Actually, our profession weeds out people who don't >belong in it pretty effectively anyway. People leave, >get fired, get promoted (as in the example), or start new careers. "Getting promoted" is not my idea of effective weeding! And why would programmers who do wrong things tend to start new careers more than those who do right things? Come to think of it, why would they even get fired? Based on my limited "real-world" experience (defense contractor, mostly), there wasn't even any attempt to determine who (if anybody) was responsible for mistakes! Given that, how could there have been any incentive to write reliable software? (Incidentally, my DoD work was for the air-launched cruise missile, and although the standards for most of the software were pretty lax, the software relating to nuclear safety was a different matter - there were elaborate calculations on the probability of accidental detonation, although I don't recall any sort of formal verification being done on the assembly (!) code involved. Now you folks living near SAC bases can sleep easier tonight. :-) ) stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu