Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

On 01/06/2016 18:53, David MacDonald wrote:
> Our original language for testable was 8 out of 10 experts would agree.
> This would be an inter reliability ratting of 0.8 out of 1.0.

It may be a minor point, but: I'd prefer language that's a little 
less...specific. Giving an actual figure of "8 out of 10" gives it a 
whiff of "it can be proven with hard numbers", sure, but really: if 
there's ever a disagreement, do we really expect somebody to gather 10 
experts, get their opinions, and then make go for the option that had 8 
votes? What if it's 5 out of 10...a draw (which is probably why you'd 
want 9 experts to be able to determine at least majority, barring 
abstentions).

In short, I'd be in favor of more generic, common sense, plain language 
(though I can understand how some may feel that "vague" language like 
"most auditors will agree" or similar may not fly for a document used 
for legislation, but then I guess that's where precedents / case law 
would come into play).

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 08:56:55 UTC