Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (06/04/91)
> > [Cost-benefit analysis] has been applied. You just disagree with > > the outcome. > Really, Mitch? Can you honestly say that every addition and change to the > BASIS was subjected to a cost-benefit analysis? (Before you answer, recall > that you were one of the many people who explained how the TC deliberations > were a _political_ process.) Yes, I can say that. When any proposal is discussed, the first thing that that proponent says is why the change is needed or helpful. That comes under the category of "benefit". Then the committee discusses the implications, both positive and negative. Negative implications fall into the category of "cost". Then, perhaps after several such discussions, and sometimes after having committeed the issue to a working group for futher study, the committee votes. I don't know of any other form of cost/benefit analysis that would be practical. We certainly can't look up the costs in a book and write them down. As stated before, the committee has resisted the suggestion that the process be reduced to a "formula". I happen to think the committee has been prudent and reasonable in doing so. I believe that human judgement is more useful than formulas in domains where controlled experimentation is impossible or impractical. I'm of course talking about substantive issues. We don't go through the full rigamarole for fixing typos or grammatical improvements. Mitch