[r-t] Methods Committee

[John Camp]

At 19:49 on 16 July 2008, Don Morrison wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM, John Camp <camp at bellringers.org> wrote:
>> I wonder whether members of the Methods Committee should (mainly) be
>> people who have rung some really complicated stuff and understand how
>> it works in practice.  Or is it only necessary to understand the
>> concepts?

> This seems rather like suggesting that there should not be civilian
> oversight of the military. Or that pharmaceutical companies should
> be regulated by a consortium of pharmaceutical companies.

But civilians who oversee the military don't make rules about how the
generals perform the professional element of their functions.  And the
pharmaceutical company analogy seems to assume that there is some sort
of public interest in what the Methods Committee does.  ('Public
interest' here meaning 'the protection of the public').  Who needs to be
protected against the ringing of non-conforming performances?

John Camp