Licensing Software and Technology to the Federal Government. This course provides clear, authoritative analysis on software licensing, and offers answers to vital questions. This special course provides clear, authoritative analysis and instruction on software licensing, offering answers to vital questions and issues, including: How can software providers and contractors maximize their rights and product protections?
What types of licensing rights are available? How should they be written? What software and documentation do the new regulations require to be delivered with a license for unlimited rights? How do the new regulations define software "developed at private expense"?
How is the licensing software treated when it is developed with indirect costs? How can proprietary source codes be protected? How can software developers protect proprietary applications to which the standard contract language would give the Government unlimited rights?
May , Day 1. What Is Not? Computer Software Commercial vs. How to mark commercial software When Is Software Commercial? Jay DeVecchio. Clients from the aerospace, technology, and health care sectors seek his representation in all facets of government procurement law, from bid protests to compl Certificates of Completion are provided to all seminar participants who attend Federal Publications Seminars courses following the event, upon request.
State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www. For more information regarding administrative policies such as refunds, cancellations and complaints, please contact Federal Publications Seminars at Defense Acquisition Workforce members must acquire 80 Continuous Learning Points CLP every two years from the date of entry into the acquisition workforce for as long as the member remains in an acquisition position per DoD Instruction We will provide you with documentation of points awarded for completing the event.
States have widely varying regulations regarding MCLE credit. Credit may be applied for in other jurisdictions on request and in accordance with state MCLE rules. We deliver the right products with the right certifications to meet and exceed Public Sector customer expectations. The government certification business is complex. Therefore, Cisco has a dedicated resource team for overall program management of global government certifications and is our 3rd pillar of excellence in support of building trustworthy products.
Governments worldwide need to ensure that products they use meet their criteria, perform as expected, and work with their existing technology. It was terribly argued, but there were good points made. When you put it as it is in tfs, it sounds horrible. Saying it is privatized sounds way better. And Obamacare was poor legislation all the way through, to the point that supporters didn't know what they were ge.
Just like you don't have to enter an airport. Therefore, when you do enter an airport, you consent to being molested by the TSA. Oh, that's utter bullshit, and you know it. If the government tells you to do something, and you don't do it, and they make you pay money for not doing it, that's "punitive" by definition.
Support it or don't, but I think there's entirely enough intellectual dishonesty on both sides already without the ostensibly "intelligent" people "News for Nerds" adding more of it.
I've learned that to get successful software, you simply cannot do things "by the book". That's why Skunkworks projects happened, exactly BECAUSE if you go "by the book" or "follow the process" stuff just won't get done, or will get semi-done spectacularly crappy. There's a big difference between people who are capable of doing things "by the book" making an informed decision not to do so, and people deciding to do things in an ad hoc manner because they can't master the "by the book" method.
Every successful project, in my opinion, requires both discipline and risk taking; the art is knowing how much of each the project you are currently managing needs. Every project should have a bit of a stretch built into it, otherwise people get sloppy because they've become com.
Actually, CGI has some great talent in both engineering and project management. How do I know this? The company's track record of successful deliveries is enviable in the Federal space. Of course, none of this is relevant to the CMMI discussion. I have great respect for MarkLogic and what it does, and know lots about the product I remember working on a product produced by a company that proudly trumpeted their Six Sigma certifications.
Had a problem with a board that was sold with the explicit feature of being able to do read-modify-write bus cycles on shared memory each board had a section of on-board memory that could be shared with the other boards across multibus.
Unfortunately, it turned out that the target board would get memory corrupted when you did that interfered with refresh cycles, I believe it was. Once I figured out that was happening, I contacted the company. Six Sigma is all about repeatable and documented processes. Well, they documented it all right. They documented that they had no idea what was wrong, that the person who had designed the hardware had retired, and that they had no one there who was qualified to even understand what I was talking about.
I guess since the problem with the board was repeatable, that justified their Six Sigma level! They continued selling that board, with the same claim of capability, for several more years. Ever since then I've had little respect for that type of certification - worried more about the proper process than about the actual results. CMMI was always SEIs way of trying to reduce programming to bricklaying only with a lot more paperwork , leaving academics like them as the only real thinking people in the process.
It can't work and will never work. As part of becomming CMM 3, we had to uabe code reviews. We paid a shitload for some asshole who wrote a book to come in and teach us. My skeptic bullshit detector went off -- transparently he was trying to amp bug find statistics to make the process look good.
But nevermind -- he got his giant check, the ignorantly savage management had a cover story of doing a good job, and we ate a shit sandwich.
If you're not using code reviews, chances are your code sucks. I don't see any need to pay somebody big bucks to tell you that. Similarly, coding standard violations increase the chance for bugs, and it's worth making code conform. In my experience, with very good people, we find a lot of bugs in code review. If you're not finding bugs, either you're superhuman or you do need instruction in code review. Regarding code reviews: why do you think they are about finding bugs?
While you can probably discover some problems through code reviews, a far more important goal is making sure that people are not turning out shitty code that will blow up the first time someone has to do any maintenance on it.
You really want to make sure that people write understandable code. Code reviews are quite valuable in large scale environments where there are many experienced eyes to review new code. Put together most of those people will have seen a lot of mistakes made, so they can help avoid the same mistakes in the future. But in small, agile environments, its not as much use. We did CMM 3 and we never had anyone come and tell us that.
We did all our code reviews after the code was at least unit tested. While the majority of what the reviews found was coding standard stuff I suspect it usually is we did have a lower defect rate on the delivered software than the industry average, and the code reviews had the side benefit that people in the team knew what each other's code did and how it worked, rather than having to try to figure it out when a crash report came in and the origin.
Level two was having procedures and sticking to them. Level three was using good software engineering techniques. Level four was measuring results in some manner, and level five was institutional commitment for improvement and that's really hard in a large company. While I'm dubious about some of the things, it was hardly an attempt to make programmers into bricklayers.
In , my employer at the time decided to go for CMMI level 3 because it was required by a govt customer for their project. Certification achieved. Then in my employer opted to shoot for the moon and go for CMMI level 5. Again, certification achieved. Two years later I left the company, because it was clear that CMMI level 5 was going to kill the company.
CMMI level 5 introduced a high level of bloat, inefficiency, process overhead, documentation requirements, and worst of all process rigidity and attempts yo manage the development process by statistical analysis.
Our delivery times more than doubled. The cost of delivering projects more than tripled. And the Holy Grail of reduced defect density? Nary a sign of such improvement. As far as I could tell, there was -zero- impact on code quality. Our customers started abandoning us, our reputation circled the bowl, and everyone who had any business sense left the place in droves. We had no authority to issue orders or assert requirements on any other contractor. Sure, CGI made some mistakes, but we can't be responsible for the other contractors when we have no contractual relationship with them!
My experience with CMMI level 5 was from a vendor with that certification providing us code years ago. They claimed as part of CMMI level 5 that errors would be detected at every possible point in the code. The problem was, this was applied without any thought to maintainability, nor to the fact that in certain places, if an error occurs, the implication is the system is so far gone that the error handler won't be able to run.
The language was Sybase stored procedures; the below is a rough example. I would fucking kill for software developers to be licensed like an engineering displine. Out of all your rant, I agree with this.
Engineering got licensing because of human deaths attributable to lack of enforceable standards. I think the same will have to happen in I. The trouble with the idea of licensing software developers is that no-one really knows yet how to develop software well in general. At most, so far, we have some people who have found practices that worked well on previous projects in their parts of the software development world, and sometimes when the stars align they share their ideas for mutual benefit.
This is still a long way short of the standards found in true engineering disciplines. I would fucking kill for software developers to be licensed like an engineering displine, do you realize how much more those of us with a clue would be worth if we could dump all the morons who managed to install a compiler or IDE on their Linux box and suddenly think they are h4x0rz programmer gods after they managed to run a shell script on their own.
Too bad you'd also dump nearly all the "morons" who wrote the fucking compiler and the Linux kernel and the drivers for it and the IDE and the shell. Nice way to go fully orthogonal ad hominem while not addressing the actual subject at hand. Did you find your debate skills in a cereal box? Froot Loops, perhaps? OK for the record: I wrote my first multi-thousand line program in I was 12 at the time. Nothing else. However, PMI Certification is demanded in so many bloody places for no goddamned reason.
It was years ago but I seem to recall that one of the things you needed to do -- along with the normal completion of additional courses -- in order to maintain your project mgmt. Seemed too much like a cult. Plus I hadn't met anyone with such a certification that could manage a project worth a damn -- or at least not any better than most people without that piece of paper.
I'm sure there are some damn. High CMMI maturity levels are really only achievable if you are in the business of mass producing something. They emphasise continuous refinement of production processes, as opposed to research and the development of totally new products. There are a few times when certification that are useful--certification for certain contractors makes it more likely they follow certain safety rules, but you can also deal with that just by making inspections common, cheap, and painless.
For the most part, certification processes are really about excluding people from local markets--rampant protectionism by people in power. Like any institution, you become a part of it, gain its advantages, and then it begins to seem hunkey-dorey, if it didn't alr.
You're comparing institutional certification with individual certification. CMMI level 3 is an attempt to guarantee that a company uses good software engineering techniques. It's similar in concept to ISO , but actually applicable to software development. It actually has some use. My experience with individual certifications in software is that they're mostly useless, and as you point out it frequently acts to reduce competition. Abstractly, these are good things.
When implemented correctly, they make debacles like healthcare. Good planning, budgeting and in-progress evaluation are generally applicable to basic research projects, software development and building ships. We all want to work on projects which are well run.
The problem is, blindly stepping through the predefined process of project management has nothing to do with actually managing a project.
You still need good managers who can recognize problems in the technical fields they're working with, understand what to do when problems crop up and are empowered to act. DoD in general fools itself into thinking it has people like this because the paperwork is done right.
I suspect that's a fairly common problem. We all know there's a problem with treating the "talent" i. I think treating management the same way is worse. The ideas that management is mastery of a process and operates solely for organizational interest over individual interest are flawed, but central to things like CMMI. I live in Argentina, where any software company getting a CMMI certification can apply for a tax cut. Because of that, CMMI was all the rage around eight years ago or so.
Turns out CMMI was so utterly useless and cumbersome that at this point most companies prefer to forget about the tax cuts rather than bother with being CMMI certified. Only companies seeking government contracts continue doing so. I have 30 years IT experience, last 15 as "design lead". Big projects, small projects, lots of programming. This was going to be great learning experience, right? Day 1, in walks this 22 year old kid, freshly graduated. And, by virtue of the fact that IBM corporate had some certification, all their designated architects automatically became "Certified Master Architects".
You have lost your moral high ground. You are not in a position anymore to demand or require anything from other people or other countries. And this includes certain western european countries as well. It should be noted that a CMMI maturity level designation is not a certification.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and take advantage of SourceForge's massive reach.
0コメント