4 ms·

The laws already exist, the penalty is just too small. With higher penalties there would be an insurance market where the insurers set standards and performs au

by VMG 7y ago

The laws already exist, the penalty is just too small. With higher penalties there would be an insurance market where the insurers set standards and performs audits. Standards set by buerocrats are usually written by special interest groups and don't achieve the desired outcome at a good cost.

ed_blackburn 7y ago
Sadly having been in such an environment, I can confirm that indemnity insurance exists for such situations. What happens is the underwriter to reduce risk mandates a very rigid process. In one case, I saw a "private cloud" provider underwrite their client's system by owning the "software-development-release-cycle". They were mandating quarterly releases and three-month manual testing and regression periods. They put themselves in a situation whereby they could charge the client for the tin, administering the process, the time and materials for the deployment and testing and the indemnity premium. They reduce their risk/exposure because of infrequent releases and such long regression cycles meant assurance levels were rarely met within the dedicated window. There was a very long tail of unreleased features. In summary, they mitigated any risk by chocking the product, reducing the number of releases and the size of them to deliver a fraction of the value available. We learned to work around by taking advantage of feature switching, but quarterly releases are a death knell for a product.
PaulHoule 7y ago
It's a recent trend that public corporations are being punished through securities fraud lawsuits since conventional regulators have been bought out. Just about any managerial incompetence can be spun as "securities fraud" since the basic presumption of most companies is that management is competent. Maybe they'll give up on that in order to reduce their exposure to lawsuits.

4 ms·

The laws already exist, the penalty is just too small. With higher penalties there would be an insurance market where the insurers set standards and performs au

by VMG 7y ago

ed_blackburn 7y ago
Sadly having been in such an environment, I can confirm that indemnity insurance exists for such situations. What happens is the underwriter to reduce risk mandates a very rigid process. In one case, I saw a "private cloud" provider underwrite their client's system by owning the "software-development-release-cycle". They were mandating quarterly releases and three-month manual testing and regression periods. They put themselves in a situation whereby they could charge the client for the tin, administering the process, the time and materials for the deployment and testing and the indemnity premium. They reduce their risk/exposure because of infrequent releases and such long regression cycles meant assurance levels were rarely met within the dedicated window. There was a very long tail of unreleased features. In summary, they mitigated any risk by chocking the product, reducing the number of releases and the size of them to deliver a fraction of the value available. We learned to work around by taking advantage of feature switching, but quarterly releases are a death knell for a product.
PaulHoule 7y ago
It's a recent trend that public corporations are being punished through securities fraud lawsuits since conventional regulators have been bought out. Just about any managerial incompetence can be spun as "securities fraud" since the basic presumption of most companies is that management is competent. Maybe they'll give up on that in order to reduce their exposure to lawsuits.