RE: Negative Policies

[bill parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

> While all technologies can be misused, I believe engineers have a
> responsibility to design systems to avoid unnecessary risks to the extent
> possible. When the same sort of accident occurs over and over again it
> behooves us to see if there are ways to make reasonable tradeoffs to avoid
> them in future. Since you mention cars, I will point to the redesign of the
> Corvair and more recently efforts to reduce the tendancy of SUVs to flip
> over.
> 
> The law makes a distinction between inherently dangerous objects, which a
> reasonable person will realize are dangerous and ordinary objects which bear
> no such presumption. If you pick up a chainsaw by the blade and are injured,
> you are a fool. If you pick up a toaster and are injured, there is something
> wrong with the design.
> 
> Hal

therein lies the fundamental difference in our positions: i am proposing the 
acceptance of individual responsibility by implementers, while you seem to be
suggesting that it be 'legislated'. 

i believe that if we start down the road of trying to make the model 'idiot proof'
(i.e. not able to be misused by non 'reasonable persons') flexibility, usability 
and functionality will suffer as we chase the definition of what 'reasonable' 
is (i suspect that our definitions differ significantly -- if you 'pick up a 
toaster' without making sure it is not hot you are a fool). 

since i do not read our charter to state the need to protect implementers from 
themselves i think that we should focus on maximizing the feature set, not 
limiting it.

b