Standard set of terms for precision, accuracy, related concepts.

[Eric S. Raymond]

Having almost recovered from post-viral fatigue syndrome, I have
enough energy to work now and am attempting to clear out my old
project-related mail.  I'd like to have my decks cleared for the
face-to-face team meeting this coming Saturday - don't know if
I'll actually manage that but I'm giving it a mighty effort.

One of the unresolved threads that has been mouldering in my
mailbox is Gary Miller and Achim Gratz arguing about what terms
to use in the numerical-analysis parts of our comments and
documentation.  I agree that it would be desirable to have
a uniform set of terms; that area is bewildering enough without
additional terminological confusion.

This has been sitting there unaddressed because I more or less own
the documentation end of things and have been telling myself that I
ought to digest that entire thread and write a glossary.  I am now
confronting the fact that this was staggeringly unrealistic of
me considering everything else on my plate.

So here's what I'm going to do...

Achim, you and Gary *both* get to write glossaries covering terms like
precision, accuracy, drift, and related stuff.  Give it your best
shot(s).  If, after a reasonable period of time, I have a glossary
only from one of you, tha person wins and the glossary gets blessed
and added to the official documentation.

If you both step up, I will engage the two of you in Socratic dialogue
until we have a merged version.  Note however that I am neither
willing nor able to allow this pricess to become an infinite time
sink.  If I think you two are arguing in circles, I will ruthlessly
terminate the process and bless something you may not like.

Gentlemen, start your engines...
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Rapists just *love* unarmed women.  And the politicians who disarm them.