[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths

[Graham John]

Martin wrote:

> point 4 also makes little sense - I can't see that peals of
> major and above can be used to give an indication of how often
> people ring an extent with an extra plain course inserted).

I expect that peals of Major and up have been "fixed" in the
past by inserting blocks of three when a bob has been called
in the wrong place, similarly Minor by embedding extents.

> I really can't see why peal lengths need adjusting to solve the
> problem of quarter peals of triples between 1250 and 1259 changes.

This is not the reason. It is:-

a) so that the decisions are equally applicable on all stages
b) so that the decisions [can] be equally applicable to peals and
quarters (any length in fact)

> I also don't see why allowing 5080s of doubles but not 5000s
> is any less logical than allowing 5079s but not 4999s.

See a) above.

> Why is there a need to ring parts of an extent at lower stages?

To ring quarters of Minor. See b) above.

> Changing the rules to allow one and a bit extents seems no more
> radical than ringing just the bit of an extent.

See a) and b) above. If Major, then why not Triples. If Triples, then
why not Minor etc.

> It's been said that peals of doubles where different rows are
> rung a different number of times should be allowed so that
> anniversaries can be marked by suitable numbers of changes.
> Is this really important?

Maybe not, but people want to do it, and the Council has
accepted at least one peal for this reason. They will also have
at least one "short peal" to consider this year, as I understand
that 5000 Grandsire Doubles was rung (deliberately) in April. 

> Why should hundreds of years of precedent be abandoned for
> no overwhelmingly compelling reason?

Any innovation, by definition, ignores hundreds of years of
precedent. Innovation is an objective of the Council, as PJE
keeps reminding us.

> ... why not change it to 4998 ... Or 4997

See a) above.

Graham