<font face="tahoma,sans-serif"><br></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Geoffrey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@serioustechnology.com">lists@serioustechnology.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Jim Kinney wrote:<br>
> True. EarthFirst is often seen as ecoterrorists. Their antics have been<br>
> very geared towards don't make an eco mess while causing problems for<br>
> "the man". This BP mess sounds more like NASA bad management calls and<br>
> the Challenget disaster.<br>
<br>
Agreed. I think the bottom line is, either they cut corners, or they<br>
simply did not plan for dealing with such a problem. Disaster recovery<br>
should be part of their plan, obviously it was not.<br>
<br><br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Who hasn't seen this before in complex projects? Multiple parties are responsible for the project. Each one assumes the other is responsible for some major piece of diligence. As a result, nobody does it. Each party is like a limb without a head controlling it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The more sinister reading is that responsibility is deliberately diffused, so that all parties can deny responsibility when something goes wrong. We have already seen this blame shifting n the congressional hearings on the disaster.</div>
</div><br>