And possibly, speeding consensus development yields proportional poverty of
knowledge capture for storage for later viewing/auditing.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Intrinsic and Extrinsic Ratings wrt IBIS
> Adding scoped weightings sounds v. interesting.
>
> Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > Thinking about it, those observations capture the notion of
> > :"intrinsic" vs. "extrinsic" (project-relative) rankings.
>
> But adding more thought to the pile, it seems to me that, as you say, the
> evaluation criteria are crucial. So perhaps there aren't just intrinsic
and
> extrinsic rankings really, but a morass of weighting dimensions depending
on
> the range of sets of criteria involved.
>
> Perhaps that's why IBIS doesn't do that. It's a deliberate limitation to
> speed consensus development. (?)
>
> Peter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@sun.com>
> To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:22 PM
> Subject: [unrev-II] Intrinsic and Extrinsic Ratings wrt IBIS
>
>
> > Good questions.
> >
> > In the textual representation I keep for design documents,
> > there is a more less equal "weight" of the symbols:
> > +: This is a thought that favors the idea
> > -: This is a thought that discourages it.
> >
> > However:
> > a) It is good to be able to record thoughts without
> > determining in advance if they are for or against,
> > and have the ability to decide that later.
> >
> > b) You are absolutely right that the content of a single
> > item can outweigh a whole flock of others. There
> > is no good way to cature that idea that I have seen
> > so far.
> >
> > In part, I think that is a "background" thing, that depends
> > in large part on your evaluation heuristics -- what you
> > consider important. So this structure:
> > i: An idea
> > +: Produces an efficient implementation
> > -: Doesn't have a very good interface.
> >
> > Produces a huge negative that totally outweighs the positive
> > if you are an interface specialist or if you are designing a
> > product in which the interface is crucial. On other hand,
> > the positive totally blows away the negative if you are a
> > performance specialist or building a batch-mode system
> > that will be configured once and run a million times
> > thereafter.
> >
> > Thinking about it, those observations capture the notion of
> > :"intrinsic" vs. "extrinsic" (project-relative) rankings. A bubble
> > sort has a + in that it is fast to code, and a negative in that it is
> > inefficient for large amounts of unsorted data. Those are "intrinsic"
> > evalations -- truisms that stand unchanged, regardless of
> > circumstances.
> >
> > When making the decision as to which sort to implement
> > for a particlar project, however, those rankings need to
> > "feed into" the evaluation criteria, using either a verbal or
> > automated equivalent of:
> > 1) This is a quick and dirty, one-time program, so
> > a bubble sort is great. (Big weighting on the plus.)
> > or
> > 2) This is something that will run for years on very
> > large sets of data, so a bubble sort is really not a
> > good idea (Big weighting on the negative).
> >
> > The intrinsic ratings represent "knowledge" -- things to
> > know about bubble sort, in addition to the mechanics of
> > constructing one.
> >
> > The extrinsic weightings, represent the product of intrinsic
> > ratings relative to the project's design criteria -- the principles
> > used to make selections among competing design alternatives.
> >
> > I suspect that many an IBIS-style conversation could be
> > improved by clearly distinguishing the two kinds of
> > information.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 14:23:53 PST