You completely missed the part that the chime needs to be user-configurable, ie. play a custom MP3 file.

You don't provide that.

I didn't miss it. I have acknowledged the requirements and have challenged them.

What I am stating is that "it was in the requirements" is not a "get out of jail card" when someone says it's over-engineered.

All I'm saying is that it's a very comfortable position to abstract away personal responsibility and say "I'm not over-engineering, that's what X wants", but that's exactly how we get the over-engineered Linux-plus-wi-fi doorbells.

Don't overthink it. If you judge the engineering then you look at how the implementation reflects the requirements, not whether the requirements are good.

Over-engineered simply means there is much more in that implementation than the baseline needed to tick off the requirements.

I disagree. IMO this mindset is not how you make good engineering or good products.

As an engineer (the traditional kind), I don't really appreciate nor can I afford the "not my problem" attitude of doing engineering in a vacuum, because in the end it's my responsibility.

> As an engineer (the traditional kind)

Isn't everybody? Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good. Not for any objective engineering reasons, just because you think so.

So I have a simple question that any engineer can answer in a heartbeat. Is a Christmas tree light installation with a bunch of series connected incandescent lights (I'm talking literally one of those classic Christmas tree lights set with absolutely no extra components or complexity beyond wires, bulbs, and plug) over engineered?

you’ve successfully over-engineered the whimsy and joy out of their original idea

I never claimed I wasn't over-engineering the line of thought, though. :)

I'm perfectly fine with people having fun or over-engineering stuff, I'm just pointing out that it's still over-engineered in the end. Which is 100% fine!