|
Burnett, Margaret
|
FSE '16-INV: ""Womenomics" and Gender-Inclusive ..."
"Womenomics" and Gender-Inclusive Software: What Software Engineers Need to Know (Invited Talk)
Margaret Burnett
(Oregon State University, USA)
This short paper is a summary of my keynote at FSE’16, with accompanying references for follow-up.
@InProceedings{FSE16p1,
author = {Margaret Burnett},
title = {"Womenomics" and Gender-Inclusive Software: What Software Engineers Need to Know (Invited Talk)},
booktitle = {Proc.\ FSE},
publisher = {ACM},
pages = {1--1},
doi = {},
year = {2016},
}
|
|
Herbsleb, James
|
FSE '16-INV: "Building a Socio-Technical ..."
Building a Socio-Technical Theory of Coordination: Why and How (Outstanding Research Award)
James Herbsleb
(Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Research aimed at understanding and addressing coordination breakdowns experienced in global software development (GSD) projects at Lucent Technologies took a path from open-ended qualitative exploratory studies to quantitative studies with a tight focus on a key problem – delay – and its causes. Rather than being directly associated with delay, multi-site work items involved more people than comparable same-site work items, and the number of people was a powerful predictor of delay. To counteract this, we developed and deployed tools and practices to support more effective communication and expertise location. After conducting two case studies of open source development, an extreme form of GSD, we realized that many tools and practices could be effective for multi-site work, but none seemed to work under all conditions. To achieve deeper insight, we developed and tested our Socio-Technical Theory of Coordination (STTC) in which the dependencies among engineering decisions are seen as defining a constraint satisfaction problem that the organization can solve in a variety of ways. I conclude by explaining how we applied these ideas to transparent development environments, then sketch important open research questions.
@InProceedings{FSE16p2,
author = {James Herbsleb},
title = {Building a Socio-Technical Theory of Coordination: Why and How (Outstanding Research Award)},
booktitle = {Proc.\ FSE},
publisher = {ACM},
pages = {2--10},
doi = {},
year = {2016},
}
|
|
Jackson, Daniel
|
FSE '16-INV: "Correct or Usable? The Limits ..."
Correct or Usable? The Limits of Traditional Verification (Impact Paper Award)
Daniel Jackson and Mandana Vaziri
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA; IBM, USA)
Since our work on verification sixteen years ago, our views of the role of verification, and the centrality of correctness, have evolved. In our presentation, we’ll talk about some of our concerns about the limitations of this kind of technology, including: usability as a key factor; the unknowable properties of the environment; and the inadequacy of specifications as a means of capturing users’ desires. We’ll describe two approaches we’re currently working on to mitigate these concerns — (1) moving to higher level abstractions with correctness by construction and (2) focusing on the conceptual structure of applications — and will argue that, combined with traditional verification tools, these offer the possibility of applications that are both usable and correct.
@InProceedings{FSE16p11,
author = {Daniel Jackson and Mandana Vaziri},
title = {Correct or Usable? The Limits of Traditional Verification (Impact Paper Award)},
booktitle = {Proc.\ FSE},
publisher = {ACM},
pages = {11--11},
doi = {},
year = {2016},
}
|
|
Vaziri, Mandana
|
FSE '16-INV: "Correct or Usable? The Limits ..."
Correct or Usable? The Limits of Traditional Verification (Impact Paper Award)
Daniel Jackson and Mandana Vaziri
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA; IBM, USA)
Since our work on verification sixteen years ago, our views of the role of verification, and the centrality of correctness, have evolved. In our presentation, we’ll talk about some of our concerns about the limitations of this kind of technology, including: usability as a key factor; the unknowable properties of the environment; and the inadequacy of specifications as a means of capturing users’ desires. We’ll describe two approaches we’re currently working on to mitigate these concerns — (1) moving to higher level abstractions with correctness by construction and (2) focusing on the conceptual structure of applications — and will argue that, combined with traditional verification tools, these offer the possibility of applications that are both usable and correct.
@InProceedings{FSE16p11,
author = {Daniel Jackson and Mandana Vaziri},
title = {Correct or Usable? The Limits of Traditional Verification (Impact Paper Award)},
booktitle = {Proc.\ FSE},
publisher = {ACM},
pages = {11--11},
doi = {},
year = {2016},
}
|