Comment by 908B64B197

> Do you mean sign as in qualify that the software is "good"?

We're not there yet. Just someone to review the final spec and see if it makes any sense at all.

Canonical example is the Canadian Phenix Payroll System. The spec described payroll rules that didn't make any sense. The project tripled in cost because they had to rewrite it almost completely.

> In general, they already have people who are supposed to be responsible for those estimates and decisions (project managers, contracting officers etc.) but whether or not they're actually held accountable is another matter.

For other projects, they must have an engineer's signature else nothing gets built. So someone does the final sanity check for the project managers-contracting officers-humanities-diploma bureaucrat. For software, none of that is required, despite the final bill being often as expensive as a bridge.

> Having a license "might" ensure some modicum of domain expertise to prevent what you talk about but I have my doubts

Can't be worse than none at all.