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

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Tue Jun 27 07:40:13 UTC 2006

Martin wrote: 

> Why does allowing quarters to conatin partial extents mean that
> the same must be allowed for peals?

To allow lengths between 40320 and 80640 of Major.

> Why do quarters and peals need exactly the same decisions?

Consistency - this is a theory list isn't it.

> Why not change it the other way, lengthening all quarters of minor to

Backwards compatibility.

> My whole point is that the reason for change given seems to be
> a vague feeling that all stages must be treated in the same way.
> Is there anything more to it?


> Sorry if I'm missing the point completely, but it does
> seem slightly over the top to change the minimum length
> of a peal on lower numbers as a result of quarter peal
> ringers wanting to name methods, and doubles ringers
> wanting to ring more than 5040 (both quite possibly
> reasonable desires).

You have missed allowing longer lengths of Major. This causes
The biggest problem. Changing the decisions so they work for
quarters too, to my mind legalises them, even with no attempt
to regulate them. Otherwise accusations that the Council
does not recognise the value of quarterpeals (especially Minor
with partial extents) will continue.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list