Thanks for that offer Blkhole.  I think we are quickly seeing why at least a small cadre of people need to be working together on this stuff so that no one person (such a Xavier) is saddled with ram-rodding CC for our Team.
 
Anyway, I've posted over at OCN to see if what we have in our thread (about 5-6 pages back) is the latest OCN suggested formula.  My thought is that we need an up-to-date view of the base things that are being suggested and that we need it in a place where our Team and others could see/consider it.
 
We have a pretty good view of what Adak over at Overclockers is suggesting, but responses from some of our "numbers/contest expert" guys (Troy and Punchy) indicate that they see nothing new over last years contest configuration.
 
As to our own ideas/suggestions, I can't really say that we have any kind of unified suggestion do we?  There have been lots of ideas tossed about, but it seems lately we are basically commenting on either Zodac's or Adak's suggestions.  That is OK, meaning ideas can come from anywhere, but here's the thing.  If we don't like Zodac's or Adak's suggestions, then where are we as Team?  Feels like "limbo" right now.  I think we need to come together on what we "can" agree to and try to help these Captains move forward on CC 2012.  If I'm all wet, let me hear it and what you think we should do at this point. 
 
I'm seeing a hurdle that keeps getting larger with added blocks like "do we keep Chimp names", etc.  It is going to take some interaction amongst all of us if we want to help get this thing moving toward a decision for CC 2012.  IMO, we need to break the thing down to just a few (1-2) key areas that could be voted upon across all the Teams.  That vote would decide things and we move forward to having CC 2012.  The problem that I see right now is that we can't even get to the 1-2 (or even 1) thing(s) that need to be agreed upon.  There is so much argument and disagreement that the arguments are the focus, not arriving at consensus.  That consensus includes all of us agreeing on things that are not 100% of what we want and I know that you guys know that.  We have to get there though...and I'm all ears.

zodac formula
#millions +(CCPPD/Handicap) x converision

 
figure on 100 % conversion (for this test)
lets say 
16m PPD
2m Handicap
16 M CCPPD/M + (16MCPPD /2M  team PPD)  
150% PPD
(forget about the small team conversion there - built into team PPD against the CC PPD)
 
now add in the conversion 
it be 125%
 
the problem with formula is that conversion is an issue
ie evga only had 56% conversion
 
so the team penalizes itself for not coming out (ie chimp names & people though formula was biased didn't come out)
that's fine  
that would show up in CC PPD by reduced output
 
by then to add in in the team growth factor again
that's (CC PPD/ handicap) - where handicap was based off team PPD (a natural conversion factor)
(punished a bit again)
 
CC PPD is only partial team  -handicap was based off full team
 
so growth % is (chimp PPD /full est handicap  of PPD) x (chimp PPD/TEAM  PPD)
 
multiplying it conversion we got another penalty
to put bluntly CC PPD^2 / (Team PPD x team PPD /10)
exponential growth - and why it fails
 
if you merger teams and they were over projections you got bonuses for over team PPD and over the conversion
 
- buzz - repeat of last year
 
this year we would at least if we went by CC  have 
(CCPPD /Chimp handicap)x CCPPD/TEAM PPD
which is slightly better because the while team  conversion in handicap is gone
but it doesn't reduce the exponential growth
 
to put simply the team punishes itself for not getting out the team (so PPD down already)
now you want to penalize said team by giving other teams more points exponentially as a factor of their conversion
 
this spread the team farther apart - and doesn't make for close races - and why it was a run away last year
 
the three factors 
 
PPD 
team growth 
conversion (or new membership growth) depending on the format
 
 
I suggested conversion to be Additive
you can have growth (CCPPD/ handicap).... % growth 
 
 
CC PPD+(CCPPD/handicap)+( CCPPD/(10* TEAM PPD))
converision(no more than 10% extra)
 
 
or  CC PPD (1+1/handicap +1/(10*team PPD))
 
( CCPPD/10* TEAM PPD) gives up to  10% conversion bonus
so rather than exponential - I made a linear progression
(way better)
 
you could also devise a weighted system
 
you could use 45% PPD - 45% growth+ 10% conversion
much what the formula above I devised does
 
the point is finding where the break comes(each % threshold) - and you have to realize I don't have good CC data - last few years have had issues (teams not coming out - team mergers)
 
the main thing is conversion should not play a big factor otherwise mergers could run amuck again
 
Small teams can get the double whammy thu team growth and team conversion otherwise
 
you could also run one based on postion for each factor
 
evga was first in PPD we get a 9(first place based on teams+1)
evga was last in conversion we get 1(last place)
 
then you use a similar formula above to weight them
 
you can have badges for PPD, growth or Conversion and make a overall if you wish
 
the dual race was after all PPD(1) and a growth race-conversion race(2)
 

OK got word back from one of the OCN members that this (link below) is still Zodac's latest formula that they feel should be used.
http://www.evga.com/forum...85&mpage=7#1487749
 
We have ample posts above on Adak's suggestion, so here's the question for us.  Do we accept either of these formulas for CC2012 and if not, what could be changed that would both suit our needs and still allow for the originator's purpose to be accomplished.  What we need here is a "win/win" approach that means everyone gives up some things while getting some things.  I'm not a "numbers guy", but would be happy to read whatever you have to offer as suggestions.  But we do need to offer more than "I don't like it".  We need some constructive suggestions that support the win/win thinking IMO and I know that we have that kind of brain-power here. 
 
Ooops didn't see that you posted just ahead of me Xavier.  Thanks!
 
So I see that you identified the issues with the OCN formula (from our perspective).  What happened to the suggested changes that you felt would help resolve those concerns?  Was there any give and take between us an OCN therafter?
 
God, where is my head at?  Even more importantly that all of the above...how is your Dad?

Guys, maybe we need to start-up the EVGA CC Chimp Talk Channel for live discussion as well.  Would that help or is it too much problem to do?  I was just thinking that this Forum posting method might be a bit slow for developing thought and sharing ideas, but maybe I'm just trying to do too much to get this thing moving...

These formulas just seem like different ways to skew the numbers (I am a "numbers guy" so I know it is not easy, but I don't have a better plan). I do like the categories or classes approach, but I'm sticking with what I said earlier:  Agree with whatever the majority of teams want to keep the CC on track.  Who cares if we win or not, we can always track the stats we care about on our own and we always turn up the heat as a team during contests, regardless.  
 
I do support keeping the Chimp names though.  I think it increases the feeling of being on a team, is part of the spirit of the CC, and really isn't that hard to do.  I wish I could offer more than just my opinion but this is only my second CC and I don't really know what goes on behind the scenes to make it happen.  I am open to helping out if I can.

Hey, I'm csm725 from OCN.
In terms of chat, we may want to start an IRC.
It is IRC dot Freenode dot com, channel name is CC2012.
I can't post links (anti-spam) but it's accessible from the web:
webchat DOT freenode DOT com.
 

well if MM site is still up just point them to it
 
as for any of my suggestions in the CC forums - with only me and zodac responding - you can see how that worked
 
zodac at the end switch to a weighted system (after we got adak onboard and the dual system)
 
so look at a formula based on 45% PPD +45% growth+10% conversion(it's a matter of running numbers and getting a balance - numerous times) each time changing the percentages
(finding the balance)
 
it very well could be 60% PPD+30+10 or 40+50+10
problem is what each team things as fair
I couldn't do it in the CC with just the two big guys developing it
and then expect the other teams not have a say or input into it
 
 
and of course you will have teams trying to get one favored more than another
 
juts remember team growth already has conversion built into it
(sinc if you add members you get growth and increased PPD) 
so why should it have any more influence than minor
 
problem is all you have is last year data - I don't have more and it's fudged due to HWC (merger) and teams not trying due to the formula (low turnout). The low turnout for some teams could result in a bonus if you used it as the basis for the next year race
 evga at 56% well?
 
we have the low handicap numbers now it should be easy to exheed it (another thing wrong basing off the CC)
 
 
 anyway...Im about to go up and see how he's doing
he's stable for now...they have run tests...I suspect more are gonna happen today
 
last time he went in - we almost lost him due to an internal bleed
this time  it could be a clot from an injury (a bruise)
 
all I can hope for is that he doesn't have a major heart attack or clot blockage or clot movement to lungs or brain
 
he's on thinners for now

Xavier, all the best with your Dad.  My wife is on blood thinners 24x7 for clots, so I know of what you speak.  It get's tougher with the elderly and these kinds of things too.  You guys are still in my thoughts and prayers.
 
Back to CC, I'm gonna go out on a bit of limb here and say something that may not be popular.  Unless a "numbers guru" can waltz-in and solve all these calculation and team sizing issues, then I have a suggestion.  Go with either Zodac's or Adak's formula, declare victory (for all of us as Folders) and move on. 
 
Here is why I feel this way and it just hit me like a ton of bricks.  At EVGA, we enjoy the #1 World Folding position each and every day.  CC is simply a gathering of those same World Folders to show what we can do, have some fun, fling the proverbial poo, etc.  If the current formulas are a little too skewed toward small to medium Teams and one of them happens to best one of us larger Teams, then is it so bad for them to have a "day in the sun" with the CC badge?  For me, that answer is "it is OK".  I've said it before, and it keeps coming back to me in different ways.  Our greatest purpose here is to do something out of the ordinary for Science.  We can do that whether we win CC overall, in the middle or just plain place last. 
 
I think most of our Team members (as shared by Opolis above) know this very well and are prepared to just be a part of CC no matter where we place in the contest.  So, for me, I don't really care whether Zodac's or Adak's formula is perfect.  They have at least put forth the effort to create one and unless we have something better to offer, why have day after day pass debating whether a formula is perfect or ultimately fair?  You see, we've had the answer all along and various members have said it across multiple Teams.  We just want to Fold together in CC because they like to do it, even if that means we don't win CC.  So the answer is stop concerning ourselves with the perfect formula and get on with a decision that enables CC to start May 5th (in just 3 weeks). 
 

Edit:  Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I'm speaking for myself and not necessarily the Team in this post.  
 

csm725OCN

Hey, I'm csm725 from OCN.
In terms of chat, we may want to start an IRC.
It is IRC dot Freenode dot com, channel name is CC2012.
I can't post links (anti-spam) but it's accessible from the web:
webchat DOT freenode DOT com.

Welcome to EVGA-land CSM725!  Really appreciate that offer and after thinking more on my suggestion of chatting our way through this, maybe it isn't really necessary.  We'd all have to be prepared to participate at a given time, have our "numbers people" there etc, to hammer out any decisions anyway.  It might be something to consider for next year's development though...

Thanks, I figured I could reach out to you guys.
We'll see. I think it's best to just use a formula and start recruiting... it's already too late for OCN to start the normal recruiting and hype=making process...

My opinion:
 
I think everyone is missing the point entirely when trying to come up with a format.  Tossing around formulas is putting the horse before the cart.  We first need to decide what is important.
 

• Total Points?
• Team Participation Percentage?
• Handicapped Points?
  • What is the best measure of determining an appropriate handicap?

 
Anyone can throw around formulas and numbers, but that doesn't mean much.  What is important is where it came from and how it will impact the Chimp Challenge.  Once we have agreed upon the proper metrics, the actual construction of the formula is quite simple...
 
 
Also, zodac's formula is completely broken and should not be used.  It was designed under the premise that OCN should have won last year and its aim is to create a contest format such that OCN will win this year.  For this reason alone I would decline to participate if that particular format is used.  But, the real issue is that it decreases the fairness and competitiveness of the contest.  It effectively widens the margins between teams compared to how unfair last year was and makes it such that certain teams don't have any chance of winning. 
 
Adak's formula seems to be a bit more reasonable, but I haven't run the numbers to see how that would stack up.  What I'm primarily interested in at this point is how it was constructed and what factors were used.
 
We knew that last year's contest was going to fail hard from the start - but no one wanted to listen.  What I fear most is that a contest that fails as hard as last year will spell the end of the little enthusiasm that remains for the Chimp Challenge.
 
Also, we've got a chat if people want to used it:  http://teamevga.cbox.ws
 
 

troy8d

I think everyone is missing the point entirely when trying to come up with a format.  Tossing around formulas is putting the horse before the cart.  We first need to decide what is important.

Troy, you have said a mouthful in that one sentence.  So, how do "we" (meaning a variety of Teams) propose to accomplish deciding what is important?  If we say it, then we need to have a way to do it and do it soon.  I also have to say something for the good of getting Teams to work together.  If we make comments such as "OCN's formula was developed just so they could win this year", we diminish getting these same Teams to consider our ideas because we have already turned them off.  I can't say that I know the motives behind either Zodac's or Adak's formula development.  If we can't trust them, then no Team should be developing these formulas and they should be done by a 3rd party that has no interest in winning the contest.  Now, I know that no 3rd party exists or is likely to, but when the term "we" is used, it carries the weight of a wide group of Folders. 
 
I'm not trying to be hard on you and you have so much more contest development skills than I will ever have.  I'm just saying that unless someone here has a better idea that they can tangibly put on the table, we are simply poking our fingers in the air to criticize that which is being offered.  I'm here to help you with that by the way, and I believe others are too in whatever way we can help to get things moving in the right direction.
 
Edit:  Had to change some things because they didn't exactly come out the way I wanted them to...

Can we at least find out where we land on the CC name first as a team
 
this will help the other teams figure out the position and why teams want to keep it
 
 

texinga

troy8d

I think everyone is missing the point entirely when trying to come up with a format.  Tossing around formulas is putting the horse before the cart.  We first need to decide what is important.

Troy, you have said a mouthful in that one sentence.  So, how do "we" (meaning a variety of Teams) propose to accomplish deciding what is important?  If we say it, then we need to have a way to do it and do it soon.  I also have to say something for the good of getting Teams to work together.  If we make comments such as "OCN's formula was developed just so they could win this year", we diminish getting these same Teams to consider our ideas because we have already turned them off.  I can't say that I know the motives behind either Zodac's or Adak's formula development.  If we can't trust them, then no Team should be developing these formulas and they should be done by a 3rd party that has no interest in winning the contest.  Now, I know that no 3rd party exists or is likely to, but when the term "we" is used, it carries the weight of a wide group of Folders. 

I'm not trying to be hard on you and you have so much more contest development skills than I will ever have.  I'm just saying that unless someone here has a better idea that they can tangibly put on the table, we are simply poking our fingers in the air to criticize that which is being offered.  I'm here to help you with that by the way, and I believe others are too in whatever way we can help to get things moving in the right direction.

Edit:  Had to change some things because they didn't exactly come out the way I wanted them to...

 
I'm not pulling this out of thin air.  If you scroll up to somewhere near the beginning of this thread when zodac was posting, when discussing the formula he first and foremost asked: "who do you think should have won last year?"  I had no answer because I had never looked at the data with the intent of manipulating it to determine a winner.  Then he shared his work with me on developing his formula and his notes clearly indicated he was intent on devising a formula where OCN would finish first and EVGA would finish second.  It was also clear that it was constructed in a rather ad hoc manner.  The final note I remember in the current version of the formula was something to the effect of "OCN finishes first and EVGA finishes third - close enough!" Whats worse is that it shows in the increased discrepancy and unfairness in distribution among the teams under zodac's formula.  Zodac's intent to manipulate the contest to OCN's advantage is one of the main reasons I've been avoiding much of the CC shennanigans. 
 
As I also said, it seems that Adak is working in good faith toward a contest that is fair to all teams involved, but I would like to see where the numbers came from that he is using as that would allow us to determine the metrics he is using.
 
As for what we should use...its all pretty subjective.  Any number of mechanisms would work fine as long as we decide what is important and implement them properly.  But comparing apples to oranges (as we are doing now) only makes things more confusing.

Xavier Zepherious

Can we at least find out where we land on the CC name first as a team
this will help the other teams figure out the position and why teams want to keep it

I tried to see if there was a way to activate a Poll on that question, but I don't see how to do it.  This is a potentially "charged" question/area as we have already seen over at OCN where it came up and has been discussed.  If the answer to that question really has a lot of impact on moving forward or as Troy suggests "deciding what is important", then I'll be happy to answer.  I'm not married to the idea of having to change Folding names just to participate in CC each year and could easily go with the notion to discard that requirement.  Having said this, if the Team feels that it is a big thing to keep, then I will honor that and go with the herd. 

csm725OCN


Thanks, I figured I could reach out to you guys.
We'll see. I think it's best to just use a formula and start recruiting... it's already too late for OCN to start the normal recruiting and hype=making process...

welcome CSM
 
yes it's late for us - we would have prefer a whole month - 
delaying also has the advantage to the smaller teams - we have a tough time mobilizing the masses too
 
I would direct you to look at why I didn't like zodac original formula
an exponential factor within the formula  (it has to be linear)
 
exponential factor hurt low turnover/conversion teams but give bonuses to high membership drive teams (high conversion)
(double punished) against (double rewarded)..it why the formula failed in the previous CC
 
the solution is to go weighted 
something zodac opted for on the last stats discussion pages on the CC
it was something I was trying to describe earlier in the CC forum
 
 
 

I can make a poll if you are not able to.. I just need the list of questions. We can go as high as 15 questions/idea/what have you...

texinga

Xavier Zepherious

Can we at least find out where we land on the CC name first as a team
this will help the other teams figure out the position and why teams want to keep it

I tried to see if there was a way to activate a Poll on that question, but I don't see how to do it.  This is a potentially "charged" question/area as we have already seen over at OCN where it came up and has been discussed.  If the answer to that question really has a lot of impact on moving forward or as Troy suggests "deciding what is important", then I'll be happy to answer.  I'm not married to the idea of having to change Folding names just to participate in CC each year and could easily go with the notion to discard that requirement.  Having said this, if the Team feels that it is a big thing to keep, then I will honor that and go with the herd. 

 
that's where Im at - Id like to keep it...but if teams want it gone who am i to stop it
if 5 teams vote to excise it - do we quit?
 
Id say make a last pitch to keep it and push for it
this will resolve part of the problem in developing a format and formula
 
Im gonna work on some numbers for a couple of weighted system again (with CC names)
 
I may post it tonight
 
 
 
 
 

Example
 
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1549213&mpage=1#1549213

To Troy, I see why you would feel that way now...hmmm doesn't sound too good from what you shared.  I still think we need to try to keep things as positive as possible because I believe there are people at OCN (just like here) that want to do the right things. Sounds like the best method to consider is Adak's at this point.  I will say that I too have been impressed by Adak's interest to find something fair for all.

I certainly agree that zodac does not speak for OCN as a whole and believe that we are headed in the right direction.    The question I have is if there is enough time left...

Afterburner

Example
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1549213&mpage=1#1549213

You the man AB!!  If we want to proceed with a Poll to ask this question, I think most people understand the issue, but for new folks maybe something like this (or a variant)?
 
CC 2012 Team Name/Configuration question. 
 
Brief background:  There are two positions that people have regarding how we participate in Chimp Challenge each year. 
 
One position is to leave things as they have been since the beginning of Chimp Challenge whereby you change your Rig(s) over to the EVGApes name.  A configuration change is required (beginning and end of the contest) and all your points are assigned to that name for the 10-day duration of Chimp Challenge.
 
The other position is to participate in CC without switching your Rig(s) over to a single Team name such as "EVGApes".  No configuration changes are required and your points remain under your Folding Name for the 10-day duration of the contest.
 
Would you prefer to continue the existing method of participation by Folding under the EVGApes name?
 
Would you prefer to change the way we participate in CC and Fold under your own Name?
 
How's that sound...

Make sure to add "don't care" as one of the choices.

troy8d

I certainly agree that zodac does not speak for OCN as a whole and believe that we are headed in the right direction.    The question I have is if there is enough time left...

This is a good question.  I've only done the one CC (last year) and don't recall how early you initiated that "get the word out" campaign that we did with all the IM's (5 at a time) .  I've been guessing that we still could pull this off, but am no expert on the timeline either. 
 
The question I have (after reading all the back and forth discussion) is also can these Teams come to agreement anytime soon?  You made another important point that I forgot to acknowledge.  It was basically, develop a solution and do no harm to future CC's.  If we can't get agreement right now, then I'd suggest that we continue the discussions, model some solutions and move CC out to the Fall when it is cooler.  I don't want the legacy of CC to be it was a great idea but failed due to lack of preparation, planning and agreement.  I think what we are seeing is that (at this time, and for some reason) the will, ability, whatever, was not there across the majority of Teams to get this done well ahead of the event.  Coming in at the last minute and agreeing to solutions just to meet a date/deadline doesn't seem to be the right way to make sure CC lives on and grows better to me either.

There isn't really enough time left to get organized now.  It will be most difficult for us as the largest team with the largest number of members that aren't really active on the forum.
I don't think we really have a chance in any kind of handicapped contest due to the nature of our team; thus I'm not really concerned about all the formulas.  If we really want the CC to benefit Stanford the most, it should be postponed to colder (for most of us) months.

troy8d


I'm not pulling this out of thin air.  If you scroll up to somewhere near the beginning of this thread when zodac was posting, when discussing the formula he first and foremost asked: "who do you think should have won last year?"  I had no answer because I had never looked at the data with the intent of manipulating it to determine a winner.  Then he shared his work with me on developing his formula and his notes clearly indicated he was intent on devising a formula where OCN would finish first and EVGA would finish second.  It was also clear that it was constructed in a rather ad hoc manner.  The final note I remember in the current version of the formula was something to the effect of "OCN finishes first and EVGA finishes third - close enough!" Whats worse is that it shows in the increased discrepancy and unfairness in distribution among the teams under zodac's formula.  Zodac's intent to manipulate the contest to OCN's advantage is one of the main reasons I've been avoiding much of the CC shennanigans. 

 
Just to answer that bolded section...
 
Yes, the system I was working on was made to show that OCN ended up in first (using last year's numbers). My reasoning for that was pretty clear. I have three factors; this is how OCN fared:
 
1) Absolute points - 2nd in the CC, behind Evga.
2) CC points (which we've all agreed was biased towards smaller teams) - 3rd, behind TPU and HWC (and ahead of much smaller teams).
3) Conversion - 3rd, again behind TPU and HWC.
 
Now, Xavier has said he doesn't like the conversion factor - we could weigh that down, or even remove it totally. But with the system that I was making at the time, OCN scored the best overall, and were first as a result. The remaining positions come down to opinion; Evga could be 2nd if you feel absolute points are more important than handicap points, or HWC would be 2nd if you felt the other way.
 
I'm not stupid... I know the OCN captain making a system that has OCN in first isn't going to go down well with people. Which is why I asked for people's opinion on who should have won last year. Even if you can't answer that, what factors do you feel a CC should be based off of? I answered that question - and it was just my opinion, and I waited quite a long time for replies - while making the formula as fair as possible. However, I get the feeling the system was disregarded by most Evga members when they say it was my idea, and it had OCN in first.
 
I'd also like to point out while I feel my system has the potential (it's simple to understand, not too drastic a change from last year, and benefits big Folding, as well as big relative Folding), I'm not demanding it be used. Nor am I saying it will 100% balance the competition fairly - I think the only way we can do that is stick to a system, and tweak it year or year. However, none of Adak's systems - in my eyes - solve the issue of smaller teams being biased.

I hate to but in, but when dose this start ?
I need to prep my desktop as it's been sitting most of the time

voodoo do-er

I hate to but in, but when dose this start ?
I need to prep my desktop as it's been sitting most of the time

May 5th, but at the rate things are not progressing that date is suspect about there being a Chimp Challenge on that day.

thanks
I have time to prep my system

zodac

I'm not stupid... I know the OCN captain making a system that has OCN in first isn't going to go down well with people. Which is why I asked for people's opinion on who should have won last year. Even if you can't answer that, what factors do you feel a CC should be based off of? I answered that question - and it was just my opinion, and I waited quite a long time for replies - while making the formula as fair as possible. However, I get the feeling the system was disregarded by most Evga members when they say it was my idea, and it had OCN in first.

I'd also like to point out while I feel my system has the potential (it's simple to understand, not too drastic a change from last year, and benefits big Folding, as well as big relative Folding), I'm not demanding it be used. Nor am I saying it will 100% balance the competition fairly - I think the only way we can do that is stick to a system, and tweak it year or year. However, none of Adak's systems - in my eyes - solve the issue of smaller teams being biased.

Hi Zodac and thanks for stopping-in.  I tell ya, watching the point/counter-point between you and Adak, I don't see a CC happening this May.  Some people on our Team (that we all respect as contest designers) are already saying/thinking that we're already past the point of getting prepared for this years race.  My comment to both you and Adak is that I applaud your willingness to engage this need.  However, you both are so set on your own idea of "what is fair" that there doesn't appear to be any room for negotiation.  You guys are speaking the same points/position over and over with no movement or willingness to bend that I can tell. 
 
I would highly suggest that both of you stop arguing your positions as absolutes and find a way to start saying "what if we changed this or that".  To anyone reading the dialogue between you two, it is a clear stalemate and we have wasted precious time if May 5th was supposed to be doable.  Weeks can't go by with people holding hard to their own ideas and actually get things like this done ahead of a major contest like CC.  The old saying that "you can win the battle and lose the war" applies here.