From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: pp000166@interramp.com (Robert Munck) Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/05/14 Message-ID: <3197f594.11851222@news.interramp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 154695100 references: <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net> <31913863.446B9B3D@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <3192c204.110870781@news.interramp.com> <3196E469.6DB6@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: PSI Public Usenet Link reply-to: munck@acm.org newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 13 May 1996 07:27:37 +0000, Ken Garlington wrote: >Robert Munck wrote: >>... hardly anyone on the committee ... has come within a mile of developing >> applications software for the DoD in the last decade. > >I believe Maretta Holden would be an exception to this rule, and based >on personal experience, I don't think she'll have any trouble presenting >the DoD contractor view of things! Maretta was the main reason that I qualified my statement. However, knowing how the Boeing management structure works, I'd still be inclined to bet that she hasn't been a designer, programmer, or first- or second-level manager on a project developing production software for the DoD for a very long time. Heck, that's the standard thing that happens to good people. My plea is for people who actually know how projects work, not people who read status reports, listen to briefings, read (and write) scholarly academic papers, and more or less believe what they hear. >Also, the committee has had inputs from DoD (which had inputs from DoD >contractors), etc. so they are certainly not working in a vacuum. That gave me a good laugh. By the time status reports work their way up the management chain from the people who know what the status is, are "vetted" by Marketing, go to the PM office and up that service's bureaucracy, have all possible problems and deficiencies cleaned out, and go to DoD, a vacuum would be crowded with information by comparison. Remember, this is the community that, after discovering that maintenance forms the great majority of their software costs, declared that COTS software would be used whenever possible, a strategy that obviously reduces initial acquisition costs at the expense of greatly increased maintenance. Bob Munck@acm.org