Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/17 23:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> This stance quite plainly empties the word "mandatory" of its meaning.
> If you wish to remove the "mandatory" items and call them "Really
> Sooper Genius Important" or something (to indicate that they're More
> Important than the Important ones), I'm ok with that.  But they're not
> _mandatory_. 

+1, that class is not useful IMO, getting rid of it will help

On the same point at 05/04/17 23:50, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/5/2017 3:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> If people instead want to have an ordered list of classes in
>> descending order of importance, I can buy that as long as the first
>
> Each time you have put that model forward, I've pointed out the human
> factors challenges of applying it.

ISTM that the humans composing the total product that is this discussion
are less varied and more predictable than the factors. (Yeah, sorry for
that:-)

Substantively: I don't find Dave's objection to eliminating the
"mandatory" class of requirement even a teeny little bit convincing.
A badly defined re-use of a term not matching its meaning in typical
English usage is just not helping.

S