4 ms·

It really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is: > " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board downgraded it to C

It really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is: > " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board downgraded it to Category II “High,” without any indication of whether plans exist to correct it." So they're both "High" but one group thought it was Category I and the other thought it was Category II? There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure.

hguant 8y ago
>There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure. Right, but take a look at the groups doing the categorization. The team that rated the issue Category I was the actual QA testing team, made up of engineers and aviators. The Board that downgraded it was made up of managers and bureaucrats, the majority of which, according to the article at least, have a vested interest in the process rather than the result. This reads to me as a Dilbert comic. Engineer: "We tested the product. It has these 111 critical defects, any one of which can destroy the product, or the user. These need to be fixed as soon as possible" PHB: "Would you call these fixes an upgrade to the current system?" Engineer: "Yes, in that it would upgrade the product to "not death to look at" PHB: Downgrades issue "Perfect. So we can fix it after we ship and charge an extra 40% as part of our exclusive upgrades contract"