Shared Understanding

[In the context of SCM on SCM]

Isn't it so that SCM is about creating and maintaining shared understanding? Therefore my "SCM on SCM".

In The Society of Mind, (18.5 Strong Arguments) Marvin Minsky wonders about ways to convince other people (it was in the context of teaching mathematics). He gives the example of an expert driver who, parking in a slope, "leaves the car in gear and turns the wheels into the curb."

This is common sense, yet the opposite of the typical mathematical way. The issue is that it is different to 'prove the truth' and to 'increase the likelihood of correctness'.

I think SCM should be concerned more with scientific knowledge, than with acceptable wisdom. Thus, one has to follow the principle: Share to Manage, Manage to Share. From an SCM point of view, accumulation of data is just duplication of information, and results in weaker manageability.

Later in his book (18.8), Minsky quotes Wolfgang Pauli: "That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!"

-- MarcGirod - 23 Jan 2003

Hmmn - I hadn't thought of SCM as creating shared understanding before. That is very interesting indeed. I've heard some people describe it as "say what you build, and build what you say" (and then "prove it" :-). I've also heard some people describe SCM as the accounting (in the sense of double-entry book-keeping) for the physical+functional aspects of what was built and released.

I like the "sharing" principle you give. What do you (and others) think about the accounting perspective? How does it relate to sharing? (or doesn't it?)

-- BradAppleton? - 25 Jan 2003

I'd say accounting is a weak form of (shared, indeed) understanding. SCM should allow to go beyond that, don't you think so?

The semantics SCM can bring in must be generic.

-- MarcGirod - 26 Jan 2003