1. Would using this option shorten the number of fpop for the WU (including child... of) ?
2. Would this reduce the number of WU (or child... of) classed as Error?
3. Would this reduce the risk of a WU (or child... of) being in Error?
4. Would this shorten the elapsed time needed to validate the WU?

Hey, I have not said that this feature would be useless I said that I don't need it for running to completion in the quad and that I am not interested with 24-hour WUs in the P4. And since I obviously missed the 24-hour WUs part in your opening post, now I say that I woukl not use this option in the quad either if it results in WUs too long for my preference.

Regarding your example:
1. it's my wingman who would need to have checked the option, not me
2. In the current situation the device matching works pretty well and very often the other WU has finished before mine, and complete too, of course. So, no loss.

All that said, if the staff wants to develop this option it's fine with me.

Hello Sekerob
Expired? Does that mean that crunchers can no longer say "Aye" if an Aye is what the cruncher wants?

Good day
;

Hello WCG.

Reference: Sekerob [Feb 22, 2010 1:17:32 PM] root post

My short answer:
The premises under Sekerob's root post is clear enough for me. I say "Aye" -- the premises of which -- is detailed under the 'My long answer' section below.

My long answer:
I would like to see Sekerob's option implemented. It sits well with the idea of project-specific settings, which I think would be a good thing for both WCG and crunchers going forward. In turn, I see project-specific settings as an implementation of what I see as where the world, in general, is heading:optimization.

I use the carManufacturer-carBuyer scenario. Because a carManufacturer wants to capture as large a market as possible, it makes sense that both transmission types (manual, and automatic) in cars be produced and made available for the carBuyers. It may be a matter of debate if an automaticTransmission is any more efficient (in many respects and not just in fuel consumption) than a manualTransmission.

Sekerob's idea (with regards to what the option is, as opposed to the idea of an option itself) may be associated with either type of transmission, and I sure would like WCG -- the carManufacturer as it were -- to produce the other type of transmission, and make the choice available to crunchers.

Now, two 'forces' come into play: the 'chicken-and-egg' (who came first: the chicken or the egg?), and what I refer to as the 'implementable-desirable' (If a thing can be done, one may desire it, otherwise what's the point?). Why would WCG make the other transmission type if there is little or no demand for it? But how would WCG get a true picture of what the demand may be if there's not even a prototype produced which carDrivers can test-drive? The lock is complete.

To break through, we need people who would rather play the quarterback than a defensive lineman; people who tend to see the 'half-full' side of things and next want to develop the good things to their fullest, rather than those who tend to see the 'half-empty' side of things and next want to shoot down almost anything if only to drag things back to the status quo for the better or for the worse. I think Sekerob would make for a good quarterback to lead an offense and carry the concept through the very tough defense presented by pessimism, mental inertia, corporate inertia, tech difficulties, if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it thinking, I-don't-care-what's-happening-outside-of-my-house types, the non-believers, and the like as well as tricks the defense may pull up from time to time. Are you up to the task Sek? Give us a touchdown. I say go for it. I say "Aye".

Good day
;

both new wu will start with pos 401 to end