06-20-2017, 06:04 PM
(06-20-2017, 04:17 PM)Shannon Wrote:(06-20-2017, 01:20 PM)Ricardo Wrote: Yes but it doesn't work, therefore something serious needs to be done or you may as well shelve the whole thing.
You keep making the mistake of thinking that because it doesn't work for a small subset of people who don't want it to work, that it doesn't work for anyone else, and therefore, that "it doesn't work".
This is not a binary situation, Ricardo, and I may never be able to get 100% success with it. But I have some ideas on how to move forward. After 3.2, I'm going to presume that they really really REALLY want to fail, and if they can and do resist 3.2, then I will let them.
So you make your choice and deal with the consequences, because after 3.2, I'll be very likely to be working on 6G development stage 2 instead of worrying about people who would rather die/be right/have it their way/complain/criticize/be miserable/whatever than succeed.
I had a long ass question and response but I wanted to make this a bit easier for Shannon.
1. What is your definition of "small subset of people"? Do you have some sort of list that allows you to know who's using DMSI? I ask because with the way things look around the forum, it certainly doesn't appear that a majority of the forum populace is consistently executing the design goal or even reached it at all. That being said, I also wouldn't say that the majority of people are complete stonewallers either.
2. What is your criteria for "resisting"? Is it complete stonewalling or does it include people like myself who are executing parts of the script? Because there are certainly parts of the script I'm executing. The design goal just ain't one of them.