THIS ONE IS INSULTING TO A LOT OF SMART,INTELLIGENT FOLKS IN DOD THAT HAVE AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS THE EDITOR AND MOST OF THE ADDRESSES. IT STRESSES THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN DOD FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE IDIOTS WHO DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT WE NEED OR TO TEST WHAT WE BUY. I REJECT THAT NOTION FROM ANYONE. BEING IN ACADEMIA OR INDUSTRIA DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO BEING THE SMARTEST AND MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS IN THE WORLD OR THIS COUNTRY. NOR THE STRONGEST OR MOST ABLE TO USE THEIR BRAINPOWER. IINCOMPETENCE HAS NO BARRIERS AND IT CROSSES INTO ALL CAMPS TO INCLUDE ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY. AT LEAST GOVT AND INDUSTRY HAVE AVENUES AVAILABLE TO ELIMINATE THOSE INDIVIDUAL WHEN THEY ARE DISCOVERED. MY BETTER JUDGEMENT TOLD ME TO SIMPLY IGNORE AND NOT RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS BELOW PARAGRAPH ONE, BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE INSULTING A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ALSO PAY TAXES JUST AS YOU DO AND THERE IS NO REASON OR ANYTHING THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THEM OR INFER THAT WE HAVE A GOVT WORKFORCE OF INCOMPETENTS. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ANYWAY. ---------- From: [log in to unmask] To: Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I + Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Lee Schmidt; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear Date: Friday, March 14, 1997 1:03PM Folks As you probably recall, I've been unhappy with the "Ada Mandate" for many, many years. I'm also in the camp that says the customer should decide the WHAT, and the contractor should decide the HOW. If the customer wants reliability and maintainability, then if Ada is indeed the best means to effect these ends, Ada will be chosen. And if Ada is *not* the best means, it won't be chosen, which is exactly right. However, that said, the present situation finds me deeply distressed. For I believe that what is going to happen is that the DoD will abandon its insistence on the HOW, and replace it, not with an insistence on the WHAT, but rather with nothing. Will future software products delivered to the DoD be assessed for reliability, maintainability, and the other *essential* -ilitites? I rather think not. I see no evidence that the DoD has any competence in such assessments, nor much evidence it even realises it *needs* such competence, and very badly. Even if such products were assessed, would the assesment have teeth? Can we really visualise the DoD rejecting a software product that bears a billion dollars of sunk cost, merely because it doesn't work? Look at the track record. Even within the Ada world, how many cases can we all cite of DoD funded developments that continued to eat funding long after it was palpably obvious they would never work? Again, I fear that such projects will be deemed "too big to fail", "too critical to fail", "too visible to fail", and the assessment will be fudged to allow us to pretend that failure is success. If the Ada mandate is to be abandoned, it must be replaced with something *more* effective at ensuring the DoD receives software that has the attributes necessary to support its mission. In particular, the software acceptance criteria must be comprehensive, rigorous, *and enforced by an independent authority*. An authority with the power, and the clout, of, for instance, the range safety officer at a missile test station. Without at least this much, I fear we are indeed heading back into the quagmire. Yours Robert Firth