To be clear, I never presented 100% complete data chains, but 80-90% complete for the team to finalise. The design team then looked at every option they could for alternatives/inspiration. That took way way longer than any of us wanted, but came round to section graph. It is so similar to the original data chains we looked again at it. Using group size again in a section seemed to resolve an concerns the team had about the data chain security etc. So here we are.
I know 100% that without the team looking at every angle we would not be in such a strong position now, but yea it does mean taking time and time for us right now is something we cannot afford. So the time expense of the searching for alternatives and inspiration was for me difficult. To be clear though many of these guys, probably all of them could code circles round me and they do as well as dissect stuff ot the tiniest detail way better than me. So its a strong team and such a strong team makes non traditional approaches difficult to agree on. Overall it works, but sometimes takes too long for me and others like Viv. It seems to be the speed we can go though as Viv pushes the team really hard and efficiently to deliver “anything” every day.
So bottom line is, this stuff and the whole network challenges traditional / classic computer Engineering and doing so means we need to have the pain of proving its worth, even to our own team members at times. The better they are the harder that job is, but thank (any deity) that they do this, regardless how hard/tiring I personally find it. I just hate the fact the team seem to need to sleep and eat as that is so very time consuming and could be done after launch IMHO (joking, seriously joking)
PS Andreas though is probably the smartest dude any of us have ever worked with, plus a nice bloke, which is quite a combination. Disjoint sections and then section graph were huge advances for the team, I doubt we would be close to here now, had he not done that