What is quality in software?
If you would summarize Kerr's view, she says, in my interpretation, that no representational system we humans can conjure for fixating the complexity of a system, fully does so; thus, rather than attempting to make use of some wet blueprint attempting to explain every aspect of the system - the modernist architect in a nutshell - it's better to acknowledge our limits and frailty as humans, and put our energies into lesser tasks, small units we know how to handle and thus reduce uncertainty and make us somewhat less ignorant.
Quality, your nature is a secret.
Still, being aware of one's partial ignorance, is better than the false pretense that the system is fully comprehensible.
How does Kerr propose we relate to quality in software?
Firstly, what should we think about this thing we call a complex system? I think there are striking similarities between Kerrs' view and Herbert A. Simon's view in Architecture of Complexity (1961),
Roughly, by a complex system I mean one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way. In such systems, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, not in an ultimate, metaphysical sense, but in the important pragmatic sense that, given the properties of the parts and the laws of their interaction, it is not a trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole. In the face of complexity, an in-principle reductionist may be at the same time a pragmatic holistic.
In a way this is an approach Kerr suggests. For instance, the main merit of TDD, tests, and microservices in this larger, more philosophical outlook is according to Kerr, as I understand her, that they are containers of complexity.
If the thing named complexity is of a size, we can reduce this size by splitting the thing into lesser parts, parts we can treat as units in isolation and so by having one thing less to worry about.
Kerr seemingly advocates microservices with similar Unix-like arguments. So also by emphasizing the merits of functional programming whose small composable units are easier to validate than the schemes of large-scale logic.
However, what's most interesting is Kerr's critique of what could be called technoscientific abstractions.
When doing science we sometimes get so entangled with purity that we forget that while some aspect of reality may be captured with a perfect abstraction, we understand very little of reality and least of all our selves. The layers of irrationality residing in us cannot be shaken off, and in the end, it is we who use scientific or engineering abstractions to close in on reality.
Mind that she does not criticize the ideas in themselves; too me it seems, she only criticizes the mental models that arise when we use such abstraction in isolation, apart from the living document that is a system and those who use it.
If a complex system rather should be understood as a node than a thing, how should we represent this?
No science of today has a good enough grasp of the complexity of human existence, society, and our world. And if this is true, why not represent the dialectics between parts with literary techniques? It's at least a possible explanation of why Kerr chooses to present her view in a spoken word-version. This sounds like something that would fail, something which would only end up with cliches. But she doesn't, I think.
I highly recommend the spoken word-version as Kerr masterfully makes use of tonality, gesture, and mime to communicate her message on quality in software. The text is very good but does not do Kerrs' message justice.
Kerr calls the form 'spoken word', but I'd rather speak of this as a one-person theatre performing a Socratic dialogue.
In the Socratic dialogues texts written by his disciple Plato, Socrates/Platon externalize different standpoints in personas, and explain why a set of arguments are misleading, contradictory, and false by asking questions and using logic to investigate where answers end. Sometimes Plato lets his master propose an alternative view of an aspect of reality, but some dialogues may also end with a sort of enlightened uncertainty. And this is what Kerr aims for in my interpretation.
Kerr asks of you one thing: to leave your self, and forget about her as a person, and that you listen, see, think but also feel.
What you see are personifications of powerful Engineer perspectives, and questions from a more… Human perspective - the user perspective, but also the perspective of the flesh and blood developers.
For each abstraction, and for each interaction with the human side of the product and product development, the Web thickens, or like overlapping threads producing a fine canvas.
I don't know what kind of architectures and technologies Kerr find best fitted. My interpretation is vague: I believe she says in her talk, and in other places, whatever technology we choose, we should not forget that the users and producers are entangled in the product. Something that may, or may not, have consequences related to our design choices regarding technology.