[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions

[Richard Smith]

Graham John wrote:

> Objectives:
>
> *	To allow methods to be named and included in the CC method
> collections if they are first rung in a quarterpeal

I'm certainly in favour of this.  It's currently common
practice to "name" methods provisionally by ringing them in
quarter peals, and the MC keep track of these provisional
names.  It seems sensible to take this a step further by
making these proper, legitimate names.

(Do any of the MC members on the list know how frequently a
method is given a provisional name by including it in a
quarter peal, and is subsequently pealed and given a
different name?  Not very frequently, I guess.)


> *	To reduce the minimum peal length to 5000 for all stages as a
> logical consequence of allowing peals to contain partial extents

Like Andrew, I'm not in favour of this.  As Andrew says,
whole extents, or multi-extent blocks comprising a whole
number of extents, have their own mathematical elegance.
If you're composing a peal of minor or triples, you need a
clear strategy for reaching all the rows; this is
dramaticaly changed if you're allowed to drop 40 rows.


> *	To remove the restrictions on stages below Major which prevent the
> popular custom of ringing unusual peal lengths for special occasions

In principle I'm against this for the same reasons that I'm
against dropping the minimum length to 5000 across the
board.  That said, it does seem a bit unfair that ringing
unusual lengths should be the preserve of major ringers
thereby preventing many ringers / towers from doing it.

It would also prevent people from ringing lengths of major
between 40,320 and 80,640.  I can imagine that one day this
might be relevant.

Maybe a compromise would be allow arbitrary lengths, but to
keep the minimum at 5040?


> *	To permit peal lengths of Major longer than 40320 to be recognised

It's a shame that the old (D)E was removed in 2002:

| In the case of peals not strictly complying with parts A
| to C above, the Council will decide whether or not to
| include such peals in the Analysis, regard being had to
| the merit of the performance. In considering the merit of
| a performance, regard shall be had to local circumstances
| and/or the technical implications of the performance.

I'm sure that had someone rung a 60k of major before this
decision was removed, it would have been counted by virtue
of this decision.

But given it has been removed, I'm in favour of explicitly
allowing longer lengths of major (and above).

[...]

> (D)B.2.  Peals of Minimus, Doubles, Minor, Triples etc
> shall be rung on four, five, six, seven etc bells
> respectively, or on five, six, seven, eight etc bells with
> the tenor as cover, and shall consist of at least 5000
> changes rung in any combination of the following, each
> starting from rounds:-
>
> (a) Extents, in which each of the possible rows at that
> stage occurs once and only once.
>
> (b) Round blocks of two or more extents in which each of
> the possible rows at that stage occurs the same number of
> times.
>
> (c) One true touch that contains a subset of all the
> possible rows at that stage, or one round block of two or
> more extents in which some of the rows from one extent
> only are omitted.

I know what you're trying to say here, and agree with it,
but I'm not convinced about the wording of (D)B.2(c).  It
sounds quite confused to me.  How about simplifying it to
just one "catch-all" case:

| Peals of Minimus, Doubles, Minor, Triples etc shall be
| rung on four, five, six, seven etc bells respectively, or
| on five, six, seven, eight etc bells with the tenor as
| cover, and shall consist of at least 5000 [or whatever]
| changes including every possible row either n or n+1
| times.

I'm sure the wording could be improved upon, but it seems a
lot simpler that a list of possibilities that are, at least
insofar as the Decisions are concerned, irrelevant.

Richard