It almost sounds like we want to reward the WGs which complete their work while producing the _least_ amount of documentation. If we assume that a document is "good" and "complete" then the most concise representation should be the easiest to work with.
Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just saying "Me too" to the "We ain't makin' widgets" responses. Optimally we should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by the world at large, but that's a little late in the process. mark-------------------------- At 3/28/02 16:01, Bill Strahm wrote: >I am reminded that early in my career I was in a company that was driven by >the >KLOC metric. They had determined that the product would have 150ish KLOC in it >and so had every programmer report the number of KLOC they had contributed >that week. > >One week I was looking through the code I had inherited and realized that I >had two >copies of a set of utilities that did the same code. I spent a day or two >removing >one set, and porting that half of code to use the other set of utilities >(Basically >I had inherited two developers code). Well my KLOC for the week was >somewhere in >the -10 range, and it was a month before I started going positive again. My >reviews >sucked, but it was the right thing to do. > >Becareful what you measure, because that is the behaviour you will get > >Bill >
