Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

I would posit there is another dynamic I think we are missing. A lot of my 
academic work around Cyclomatic Complexity is about relating the complexity of 
code to latent defects in programs AFTER PEOPLE THINK THEY FOUND ALL OF THE 
BUGS.

I think the analogy here is that AD review, cross-area review, and sacrifices 
to Amaterasu will not find ALL of the bugs in a specification. The best we can 
hope for is to do best practices to keep the bugs to an acceptable, low level.

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Ted Lemon 
> <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > AD review appears to miss far more than it catches.  That's seems to be
> > difficult for some folk to accept, and so they point to the individual
> > exceptions rather than the longer pattern of misses.  (By way of some
> > very strategic examples, consider IPv6 and DNSSec and email security and
> > key management and...)
> Do you have data on this?   This doesn't match my experience.   I've found AD 
> review to be very helpful.   It's certainly inconvenient, but I've seen AD 
> reviews catch lots of things that were worth catching.   I would not go so 
> far as to claim that my anecdote is more valid than yours, but I think that 
> if we are going to make claims like this, we should probably back them up 
> with data.   The current AD review process didn't just happen.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail