He covers priority inversion, a high priority task is preempted by a lower priority task. There's a similar neologism, bikeshedding, wasting time on trivial details while important matters wait.
It's not that similar at all. In priority inversion, the task of choosing the
colour of the bike shed is essential to complete the whole reactor (even if
it's unimportant which colour would that be). In bikeshedding, both tasks can
be carried out independently. Priority inversion happens when a task of high
priority waits for a low-priority task to finish, then the low-priority task
has its priority artificially and temporarily increased.
Moreover, bikeshedding is not a term from technical ground, but from
psychology. It talks about what people want instead of how computer system
works.
In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight.
> In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence.
But it's a matter of psychology of the organization members, not
a technical issue. On the other hand, priority inversion is purely technical
thing.
And then, the reactor could easily be built without bike shed finished. The
two tasks are independent. Inversion of priorities happens precisely because
the high priority task cannot be finished without the low priority task.
Thus, both the field the term operates on and the term's mechanics are
completely different.
> With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight.
And that's about the only aspect of the two terms that is similar. Both talk
about two objects with vastly different (nominal) importance.
