[r-t] The important points
tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 14:24:33 UTC 2014
Re: (a) and (b) below - it seems at least a majority do. But it would be
interesting if this list had access to a voting mechanism so we could see
if this is correct, and if so, how big a majority. Perhaps the list
administrators might organize a quick poll on survey monkey or similar,
with everyone on this list getting one vote. That the designers of the
lettering of the false course-head groups left 'A' available for methods
that are false in the plain course makes this so simple to implement. It's
as though it was contemplated.
Re: what are we going to do about it - I would offer the following points,
many no doubt obvious, and will then stop making lengthy posts(!)
- I wouldn't advocate lobbying just to try and fix the false plain course
method / blocks issue. Energy would be better used pressing for a full
overhaul of the Decisions - there now seems to be a groundswell of opinion
- Despite a CC motion passing that the Decisions need a major rethink (I
don't know what the actual wording was), I doubt change will come from
within the CC. The forces for the status quo or only minimal change are
too great, and this isn't unusual in an institution like the CC.
- Change therefore needs to be initiated from outside, but done in the
right way. A starting point could be this list (or a spin-off sub-set of
those interested) organizing itself to produce an alternative set of
Decisions. Others have already made proposals (including PJE, GACJ and MBD
I believe), so a lot of good work has already been done. E.g. PJE reduced
about 1550 words on method extension to a very clear 85.
- The revised Decisions should respect history where possible and not
affect 'ordinary' ringing (e.g. a Grandsire single shouldn't become two
separate calls). Where change is needed (e.g. VC doesn't require special
treatment, blocks are eliminated, Surprise / Delight are possibly merged
into Treble Bob), mechanisms would likely be needed (e.g. on BellBoard) to
show both the historic version of how a peal was recorded, as well as the
version under the new Decisions.
- Simplicity and elegance should be key drivers for the new Decisions, to
make them accessible to a much larger proportion of ringers. I would hope
the current approx 5000 words could be reduced to more like 1000-1500.
- Once agreed (this would probably take a few months, and agreement
probably wouldn't be more than about a 60% majority), the next step is a
gentle campaign to influence those with a CC vote. E.g. supporters on this
list discussing with their local CC reps. In an ideal world, the relevant
CC committees would see opinion shifting and become part of the process.
By next May a completely revised set of Decisions with good consensus
support could be voted on at the CC meeting.
- No doubt another obvious point, but any set of Decisions will never be
perfect nor take account of all eventualities. Decisions will regularly
need to be updated to handle new situations, and so a repeating cycle of
augmenting the Decisions for a few decades and then having a full revamp
when they become unwieldy is probably inevitable. In 20-30 years we might
need a Decision on whether, if a peal band meets short, a robot can be used
to make up the band...
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Previously on Twin Peaks I said the following. Is there really no
> feedback, positive or negative?
> Moving on from the 5040 discussion, which is interesting but a sideline
> here, is it the case that pretty much everyone on this list agrees with
> these statements:
> (a) methods false in the plain course aren't a problem, and
> (b) the current "blocks" definition is a load of nonsense.
> If so, what are we going to do about it?
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory