Wording of Engineering Processes Problem

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Tue Jun 10 09:53:00 CEST 2003

<john.loughney at nokia.com> writes:

> Hi Margaret,
> > As I mentioned in SF, I think we may want to change the
> > wording of the "Engineering Processes" problem...
> > 
> > IMO, the problem isn't that we don't use effective
> > engineering processes (although using them may be part
> > of the solution).  I'd state the problem as:
> > 
> > "WGs do not consistently produce timely, high-quality
> > and predictable output."
> I could buy that.
> > Solutions to this problem might include:  adoption of
> > quality processes, training, better review during document
> > production, flogging WG chairs who produce crap, etc.
> Or how about simple checks & balances?

I don't think so. The main function of checks and balances in
most political systems is to stop things from getting done.

If we actually want to produce work that's good, I think we'll
have to orient ourselves more towards that goal.


[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr at rtfm.com]

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list