Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:27:50 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <199609050427.VAA08210@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609050405.WAA04202@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 4, 96 10:05:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Joe Hacker will be more likely to present his credentials if you will > > define what "good stuff" is, other than a value judgement at the time > > you are presented with a fait accompli. > > 'Good Stuff' - Something which provably works better than the status quo > which in the end doesn't require more work out of 'me'. The criteria "doesn't require more work out of 'me'" is a subjective value judgement. It's inherently impossible to provide a technical answer when a value judgement is involved, since subjective values can not be generalized or quantified. "I can't tell you wht pornography is, but I know it when I see it" is not a sufficient answer on which to base a policy decision. > My grandparents have a poster at their house that is appropriate: > > "A single good deed is better than the grandest of good intentions." > > Translation: > > "An implemented idea is better than the grandest of good proposed solutions." How about *implementing* a policy, then, so Richard can have a non-subjective ruler with which he can measure his design, and correct it where it is wanting, instead of wasting time building a football stadium only to find out the team he is building it for is the Dodgers (ie: "build a stadium" is not a sufficiently qualified directive). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609050427.VAA08210>