Perhaps I am wrong here, but I got a much different message out of the post.<p><i></i>It&#x27;s not about actually having ZERO bugs as it is about enforcing a strict and logical classification system.<i></i><p>I think this quote resonated with me the most:<p>&gt; ...but much more so, the bugs were a result of incorrect specification or missing specifications.<p>The argument being made is that if you hand a developer a specification, the developer implements the specification _as specified_, then you discover the specification was incorrect or that in practice you want a change would you classify that as a _BUG_?  No.  But a lot of shops _do_, so they end up with _too_ many tasks classified as a &quot;Bug&quot; which makes it impossible to prioritize since being a &quot;Bug&quot; is a binary descriptor.<p>By enforcing a classification system means you have the ability to then enforce a prioritization system...and really the prioritization system is key for maintaining consistent output and forward progress.<p>At least that what I felt the argument of the post was...and I see some reasonability to it.  Especially since, as the author mentioned, this is not a new idea.