3 ms·

Is that an objection against the story's point? The fact that people might come up with silly/nonsensical/bad justifications for the fence doesn't seem undermi

Is that an objection against the story's point? The fact that people might come up with silly/nonsensical/bad justifications for the fence doesn't seem undermine the importance of doing due diligence to determine if there is a good reason for the fence in the first place.

goto11 7y ago
Due diligence is great, but it is an objection against the default stance of keeping the fence if you can't explain why it is there. The fence becomes onions in the varnish or cargo cult. At least in software development it is poison to have too many "we cant change that area of the code, nobody understand what it does". Sometimes you just have to tear down the fence and observe the consequences.
- winstonewert 7y ago
  I guess I don't read the parable as insisting that we have to keep the fence if we can't find the reason for it after due diligence. It simply doesn't try to speak to that case.
  - goto11 7y ago
    It is stated quite explicitly in the article: "Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place." It follows that you can't remove a fence if you cant figure out why it was created in the first place.
    - winstonewert 7y ago
      What are you, some kind of robot? (If so, awesome!) This is natural language, you can't treat it like a statement in predicate logic. Its very common in natural language to state general principles which apply most of the time without intending it to be an iron-clad rule that would apply in any circumstances without exception. For example, if there is a "Stay off the grass" sign, you'd avoid going on the grass, but you'd still go on if the need was important enough. The case of being unable to find the reason is an exceptional circumstance in which the principle does not apply, at least in quite the same way.

3 ms·

Is that an objection against the story's point? The fact that people might come up with silly/nonsensical/bad justifications for the fence doesn't seem undermi

by winstonewert 7y ago

goto11 7y ago
Due diligence is great, but it is an objection against the default stance of keeping the fence if you can't explain why it is there. The fence becomes onions in the varnish or cargo cult. At least in software development it is poison to have too many "we cant change that area of the code, nobody understand what it does". Sometimes you just have to tear down the fence and observe the consequences.
- winstonewert 7y ago
  I guess I don't read the parable as insisting that we have to keep the fence if we can't find the reason for it after due diligence. It simply doesn't try to speak to that case.
  - goto11 7y ago
    It is stated quite explicitly in the article: "Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place." It follows that you can't remove a fence if you cant figure out why it was created in the first place.
    - winstonewert 7y ago
      What are you, some kind of robot? (If so, awesome!) This is natural language, you can't treat it like a statement in predicate logic. Its very common in natural language to state general principles which apply most of the time without intending it to be an iron-clad rule that would apply in any circumstances without exception. For example, if there is a "Stay off the grass" sign, you'd avoid going on the grass, but you'd still go on if the need was important enough. The case of being unable to find the reason is an exceptional circumstance in which the principle does not apply, at least in quite the same way.