[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> We'll end up with something ten times longer than we have
> now, which is bad.

What is the basis for making that assertion?

This straw man proposal replaces (D)A.1, (D)A.2, (D)A.3, (D)A.11, and
all of (D)B. in the current Decisions. That's over 1,500 words that
would be replaced in the proposal by under 500. Looks to me more like
a three fold shrinkage, not ten fold growth.

And in the process defining several things, including the all
important word "true", that are left implicit and undefined in the
current Decisions, and thus subject to argument.

And note that the current Decisions are almost certainly guaranteed to
grow, as every time someone does something new with sufficient
vehemence that the Council is forced to accept it, the Decisions get
modified by adding further special cases, rather than by simplifying.

That said, I know I tend to be wordy, and so I'm sure what I've
proposed can be shrunk further:

- which sections or sub-definitions can be excised without damaging
  the integrity of the whole?

- and any suggestions for tightening up individual sections, sentences
  or clauses?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The art of flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
          -- Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_