[r-t] Provisional records, was New methods

[Ted Steele]

My suggestion of a provisional list was very far from a worked through 
proposal, more a spontaneous thought that seemed capable of development 
to perhaps give something useful.

Philip Earis wrote:

"What you're proposing is putting (keeping) a value judgment into the decisions". 

That is absolutely the opposite of what I am suggesting. Decisions would effectively disappear and methods (actually not methods but method types and calls etc.)would become established by virtue only of enough people ringing them and thereby demonstrating their belief in their value., 

Also, "You are also proscribing that things must be rung frequently to be included".

Again, not so. I draw no distinction between the merit of things or their inclusion in records. The provisional and established lists would give exactly equal status to everything and would simply indicate what is new and innovative. In analysing, for example the number of surprise methods it would simply be a matter of checking both lists. If a method is "provisional" because it has six blows in one place it would still be a surprise method and would be counted. If such surprise methods never caught on they would simply never appear upon the list of established methods and this would demonstrate what the exercise at large thought of them. 

Also "There are many god-awful new conventional surprise major methods rung only once - would you exclude these on the grounds they're not rung often enough?"

No, they are conventional and therefore have become established as method types and comply with conventions for that type, therefor they are already established. I am not talking about methods as such but about things that do not follow current conventions, and certainly not about good and bad.

Don Morrison wrote:

"With this postulated new "provisional list" am I correct in presuming that it is proposed that the CCCBR Decisions be amended so that the provisional names there stick, so that folks ringing the same thing again use the same name".

Yes; although it is intrinsic to what I suggest that most decisions should be abandoned (except as matters of historical record) in order that what is worthy of recognition i.e. as "established" can be determined by the exercise at large through the simple expedient of actually ringing new stuff.

Also:

"This is in contrast to the current provisional list maintained by the CCCBR Methods Committee".

As far as I am aware that list is concerned only with method names. My suggestion concerns developments in method types, calls etc. which would currently be rejected as non-compliant. It would give full recognition to everything new but time and usage alone would determine what is worth pursuing. Variable cover is a good example and would probably have languished on the provisional list for all time.

Also:

"I believe that is all the more reason the Council's behaviour should be such that new things are not rejected
out of hand".

That is exactly the aim of my suggestion.

Mark Davies wrote;

"But, with the rules as tight as they are at the moment, there may be nowhere on the established list to put the new method".

As stated above, rules would effectively disappear. If a new method type is devised and becomes established then its new class is  established with it.

Let me stress again that this is not a worked out proposal and not something that I am seeking to promote but just the germ of an idea that could allow innovation without regard to existing decisions and enable full credit to be given to the innovators while maintaining a clear record of what the exercise itself regards as its established norms. I am nowhere near familiar enough with the current decisions to comment too much and nor am I ever likely to ring a non-compliant peal, but I am interested in innovation and believe that we need an environment in which it can flourish. Perhaps there may be something here for those to whom these things are significant.

Ted