From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 27 May 93 18:06:27 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!vand@ucbvax .Berkeley.EDU (Laurence VanDolsen) Subject: Re: Hey, blame the private sector! Message-ID: <1993May27.180627.10664@source.asset.com> List-Id: In article spray@convex.com (Rob Spray) wri tes: >In <1993May26.182402.19744@source.asset.com> vand@source.asset.com (Laurence V anDolsen) writes: > >>In article emery@dr_no.mitre.org >>(David Emery) writes: > >>> On the other >>>hand, what do you suppose the SEI CMM rating would be for Richard >>>Stallman, et.al. at the Free Software Foundation? > >>Intriguing question. They would probably conclude that he follows his >>proven process religiously. A lot of the assessment methodology relies >>on having the process documented and being able to audit tangible >>artifacts which demonstrate adherence to the process. I suspect that he >>works with such a small group that they have, generally, found this >>unnecessary. > >Which infers that the FSF would be evaluated at a low CMM level, >which could bar them from being awarded a government contract >that required the contractor to have attained a certain CMM level. > I am not certain that the result is implied. It would depend somewhat on the intelligence and motivation of the evaluators as well as on characteristics of the FSF processes at which I can only guess. In any event, Richard has several other philosophical disagreements with the DoD business style which might make this a moot point. BTW, I generally agree with his positions, as I understand them. In an ideal world, all programmer's would be as smart as Richard and all management would be smart enough to attract and hold such people.