After reading the HumanOps.rst text some some comments come to my mind so I decided they are worth sharing with you all in order to update the contents, if you might so.
I believe that not only "Humans impact systems" but also that "Systems impact humans" as well. As a matter of fact, I'd better say Being part of systems impact on humans, which is. in fact, the main reason behind all this HumanOps concept, if I am not wrong.
That is why the explicit text of the document sounds a bit contradictory to me since, in one hand, it is said that humans are part of the system (point 1) and, on the other hand, that the interaction between human operators and the system goes both ways... (point 2), which implicitly considers both, systems and humans, as separate entities.
I feel some clarification is in order here, do you agree?
After reading the HumanOps.rst text some some comments come to my mind so I decided they are worth sharing with you all in order to update the contents, if you might so.
I believe that not only "Humans impact systems" but also that "Systems impact humans" as well. As a matter of fact, I'd better say Being part of systems impact on humans, which is. in fact, the main reason behind all this HumanOps concept, if I am not wrong.
That is why the explicit text of the document sounds a bit contradictory to me since, in one hand, it is said that humans are part of the system (point 1) and, on the other hand, that the interaction between human operators and the system goes both ways... (point 2), which implicitly considers both, systems and humans, as separate entities.
I feel some clarification is in order here, do you agree?