Well, I think Architecture Astronauts are generally a huge nuisance because they can sell work so well. Yet they so often simultaneously produce these unworkab

Well, I think Architecture Astronauts are generally a huge nuisance because they can sell work so well. Yet they so often simultaneously produce these unworkable, purely conjectural designs that so often do not connect with real users and their needs/wants. And how many times have I heard "all the knowledge about the system is locked up in his head"? Tough to keep the bile down sometimes. Heck, I'm up and working at 4am today because of an AA and his stupid "elegant" data design that is "set in stone" that requires me to provide reams of documentation. I have to make up for the fact that my data is wholly incomprehensible without all kinds of independent documentation. This is all work the AA should have done himself, but instead all he shares are these idyllic, sophomoric examples that NEVER appear in the real world. It's rich that the system is thought to be "elegant" because one major aspect is simple (there are only something like 8 fundamental data types in the file format to describe the whole system). Elegant? No, perhaps "convoluted" describes it better, maybe "rambling". Data files tend to be veeeery tall and veeeery skinny. Sigh. So I'm working up to a huge real-world demo and I'm looking forward to canvasing the team in order to create a crisis. "Looking at this realistic example and seeing how much work it took me to get here, what are your impressions of the file format?"