- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:34 -0500
- To: www-qa@w3.org
As someone who feels that W3C is under-invested in enforcement, I'm afraid that the move to gallows humor just lets the people who need to embrace and drive reform off the hook. >On the other extreme, some things that aren't standards are enforced. >When I went through airport security a few weeks ago, the sign said it >is recommended that shoes be removed. Since this is a recommendation (a >should) I choose to not implement it and was told that I have to take my >shoes off or else. I explained the difference between SHOULDS and MUSTS >but it was not received with much enthusiasm. > >This, of course, is the wrong use of a recommended practice . . . Mark, you are ignoring the fine print: the _advice_ suggesting you _should_ remove your shoes is directed at what you should do to prepare *before arriving at the magnetometer*. The instruction that you _must_ remove your shoes is a lawful directive by the agent of the Government charged with getting many people through with few missed proscribed items. In the law and regulation, the directions of this person supercede the advice on the sign. There is a tension between the rule of law and the necessity to be able to respond to exigencies [1.2]. At the higher level; the whole group is missing the point. The management adage reads: "Make your demands very simple, and very consistently enforced." Any time success depends on a high degree of conformance in the actions of a large body of primarily autonomous agents, this is a necessity. So the real lesson to be taken away is along the lines of Occam's razor. "Don't expect what you don't inspect." And don't pretend to prescribe what you don't have the wherewithal to enforce. We shouldn't be more vicious in enforcing the whims of standards committees. We should be disciplined in what we grant standard status; and limit it to what merits and receives an effective level of effort put into ongoing enforcement activities. Al [1] The U.S. Senate hearings starting today attest to this tension. [2] It is interesting that the move to empower the front-line personnel to make more judgement calls is one of the fruits of the so-called "quality revolution." The reason that the policy about shoes is subject to tweaking at the front lines by the personnel in the line of fire is called "empowerment" and is based on the presumed quality advantage of decentralizing decisions. Not falling prey to Emerson's "foolish consistency." > >**************************************************************** >Mark Skall >Chief >Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division >Information Technology Laboratory >National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) >100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 >Voice: 301-975-3262 >Fax: 301-590-9174 >Email: mskall@nist.gov >**************************************************************** > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-qa-request@w3.org [mailto:www-qa-request@w3.org] On Behalf >Of >> Patrick Curran >> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:53 PM >> To: www-qa@w3.org >> Subject: A modest proposal... >> >> >> I've recently started blogging on various standards-related issues. I >> thought you might be interested in my latest post: >> >> >http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/pcurran?entry=a_modest_proposal_for_the >> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 15:12:43 UTC