[r-t] Changes to decisions again

[Mark Davies]

> This is part of the problem.  Everyone has different view of
> where "change-ringing as we know it" ends, and thus everyone
> has different views of what the CC should permit.

Ben, this is probably true, but at this stage we should be concentrating on 
the fact that change IS needed, and that description not prescription should 
be the ruling principle, rather than fighting amongst ourselves about 
implementation details.

Regarding jump changes, I don't think I see them as change-ringing either, 
but on the other hand I don't think I'd be too upset if they were included. 
The guiding line has got to be, if someone rang 5000 or more rows using this 
construction, would we want to treat it as a peal? For call changes, I'd say 
no, we wouldn't. For Dixons or jump changes, well yes, I don't see why that 
shouldn't be a peal. But that can be mulled over at a later date.

MBD