% METHOD: Testing the testbed: testing software with observatory ambitions (SWOA)
% WARNING: this method may make more sense if you first take a look at the [Something in the Middle Maybe (SitMM)](http://pad.constantvzw.org/p/observatory.guide.sitmm) which is an instance of a SWOA
% HOW: The interwebs hosts many projects that aim to produce software for observing software, (from now on Software With Observatory Ambitions (SWOA)). A comparative methodology can be produced by testing different SWOA to observe software of interest. Example: use different sniffing software to observe wireless networks, e.g., wireshark vs tcpdump vs SitMM. Comparing SWOA reveals what is seen as worthy of observation (e.g., what protocols, what space, which devices), the granularity of the observation (e.g., how is the observation captured, in what detail), the logo and conceptual framework of choice etc. This type of observation may be turned into a service (See also: Something in the Middle Maybe (SitMM)).
% WHEN: Ideally, SWOA can be used everywhere and in every situation. In reality, institutions, laws and administrators like to limit the use of SWOA on infrastructures to people who are also administering these networks. Hence, we are presented with the situation that the use of SWOA is condoned when it is down by researchers and pen testers (e.g., they were hired) and shunned when done by others (often subject to name calling as hackers or attackers). 
%WHAT: Deep philosophical moment: most software has a recursive observatory ambition (it wants to be observed in its execution, output etc.). Debuggers, logs, dashboards are all instances of software with observatory ambitions and can not be separated from software itself. Continuous integration is the act of folding the whole software development process into one big feedback loop. So, what separates SWOA from software itself? Is it the intention of observing software with a critical, agonistic or adversarial perspective vs one focused on productivity and efficiency that distinguishes SWOA from software? What makes SWOA a critical practice over other forms of sotware observation. If our methodology is testing SWOA, then is it a meta critique of critique?
% WHO: If you can run multiple SWOAs, you can do it. The question is: will people like it if you turn your gaze on their SWOA based methods of observation? Once again we find that observation can surface power asymmetries and lead to defensiveness or desires to escape the observation in the case of the observed, and a instinct to try to conceal that observation is taking place.
% URGENCY: If observation is a form of critical engagement in that it surfaces the workings of software that are invisible to many, it follows that people would develop software to observe (SWOAs). Testing SWOAs puts this form of critical observation to test with the desire to understand how what is made transparent through each SWOA also makes things invisible and reconfigures power.
% NOTE: Good SWOA software usually uses an animal as a logo.:D

% WARNING:  Many of the SWOA projects we looked at are promises more than running software/available code. Much of it is likely to turn into obsolete gradware, making testing difficult. 
% REMEMBER: 
% SOURCE: By/history/source/origin/process: the "original testbed" was proposed by researchers/collaborators at Princeton University. Testing this testbed at a local Constant workshop led to the meta-project on testing software meant for testing software.

% SEEALSO: making a bestiary of visual cultures/logos around it 
% SEEALSO: http://pad.constantvzw.org/p/observatory.guide.bestiary
% SEEALSO: http://pad.constantvzw.org/p/observatory.guide.sitmm


% - don't start with source
% - the what needs to be very clear
% - start with a warning
% - do an entry for SITMM
% - mention scapy as an alternative