In article <[log in to unmask]>, Adrian
Midgley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Ross said "
>What we need is a mechanism for public review of all strategic
>decisions that will be very hard to change later (such as the
>definition of new EDIFACT messages). If interested parties find a
>serious flaw, then there must be an effective power of veto.
>
>This would mean an end to the current fashion of trying to push
>through unpopular administrative changes stealthily, by tinkering
>with computer systems. However, that would be no bad thing - and
>perhaps a suitable New Year's resolution for our lords and masters?
>
>"
>
>Right.
>I have always been proud of the (small number of) paper forms I have
>produced. So proud that I put my name on them. All electronic message
>formats should have the name of theperson who designed (or the chairman
>of the ctee who signed them off as good) on them.
>I have a list of names which is growing, please feel free to add to it
>(allegedly).
>Give credit where it is due, and debit ditto.
Asrian
Excellent idea - but with one amendment. It is not enough just to sign
off the message. Both the message AND the managing software need to be
looked at. That is what the GPPL User Scrutiny Panel will be asked to
do. We will be seeking volunteers in the near future. See my longer
reply to Ross Anderson
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|