[r-t] applicability and timing (was The null change)

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hopefully it's clear enough that the 5
> restrictions we've voted on to date (falseness in plain course, lead
> divisibility, single lead courses, rotation, number of consecutive blows)
> referred to restrictions on β-methods.

You'd be disappointed if I ever agreed that something is "clear
enough", right?

Falseness in the the plain course is probably applicable to non-β
methods, too (modulo whatever the *&^$% a "plain course" is).
Fortunately falseness in the plain course is moot, since we decided
it's just fine, right?

Number of consecutive blows is potentially just as relevant to non-β
methods as to β-methods. If, however,

- the decision is we don't care how many consecutive blows in the same
place a method has, it becomes moot.

- we converge on an arbitrary, fixed limit (either the current 4 for
>= doubles, or something larger) we either apply it to non-β methods,
too, or make that another distinguishing characteristic of β versus
non-β methods, a situation not unlike the current "if it's got 4
consecutive blows it's a method but if it's got 5 it's a non-method
block" mess. Fortunately, if I'm reading the temperature of this group
correctly, we are unlikely to converge on a fixed limit.

- the decision is that it's got to move at least once per lead, it's
less clear; it'll depend upon how we define "lead", I suppose. I think
it could be easily made applicable to non-β methods, if we so chose.

Whether or not rotation is applicable to non-β methods I have no
idea, though it sure does make my head ache to ponder it. Then again,
even for β-methods rotation has demanded a lot of aspirin.

> For the consecutive blows poll, new votes coming in have now practically
> stopped (total votes = 27 at present, with the result still conclusive).
> Clearly a week is longer than needed for a poll to be open - 48 hours
> appears to be enough.

I'd be careful about extrapolating too much from one data point. It is
not uncommon for folks to be away for a few days, so 48 hours sounds
awfully tight. Waiting a bit longer is only a problem if the next
issue depends upon the outcome of the previous one, right? Often they
are sufficiently independent progress can be made while waiting, I think.
As, indeed, you seem to be doing, thank you!



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Reality can be so scripted sometimes."
     -- Howard Kurtz, _The Washington Post_, 11 July 2007