[clug] Dangerous Dave's talk

[Bryan Kilgallin]

Dave:

> I think a more engineering approach is to assess the risks (write them 
> down), and then attempt to mitigate/cover those risks one by one, 
> assessing them for strengths and weaknesses.

This is what a professional is supposed to do.

> Pretty boring, but quite likely to give the best outcomes in the end.

However, I have seen even qualified people behave in an unprofessional 
manner!

>
> For each 'solution' element, what are the risks that it covers, and 
> how well?

Where requirements are hard--they get circumvented!

> Are there better ways to do the same thing?

Whereas education/training is supposed to bring people up to scratch.

> Are the risks real, or just 'tin foil' material?

Apes are very bad at working with risk/probability!

> Are they practical?

Can the automation do well--what the flesh is distinctly clumsy at?

> At what 'cost' or level of difficulty, etc

Value judgements are vague and changeable.

-- www.netspeed.com.au/bryan/