Committees Dont Read

AntiPattern, an aggravating circumstance to the CommitteesDontCode.

Well, if generally it is accepted that committees don't code and we have to live with that fatality, at least they ought to read, and read a lot. Guess what happens in real life ?

The result is that very often standards contain design errors that ought not to have happened because the committees ought to have done a serious documentation on the subject.

Just ask yourself what was the last standard you read that did contain a bibliography.

One of the problems with standards is that they tend to get written with a word processor. Last year I had to design some software to check data against a standard. Rather than type the standard into a database I used the PythonLanguage to parse the text and extract all the rules and conditions. Of course I found lots of logic errors in the standard that no-one seemed to have noticed. Committees not reading is a problem aggrevated by the tools they use to write. If rules were typed into a database that then generates a written document if required, it is a lot easier to check for errors. This is a good reason to AutomateProcesses.