[r-t] The important points, now with survey!

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Mon Jun 9 00:44:56 UTC 2014

On 6 Jun 2014, at 18:20, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> 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.

It certainly seems that the *posting* members of this list agree. I wonder how many lurkers there are and what their opinions might be? If I didn't post much I might be quite hesitant to come out and disagree with what seems to be prevailing opinion. Someone suggested a poll, so let's try it: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/76S7PSD I've never done anything like this before, so let's see what happens.
It's really very quick, no sign-up or anything tricky, and you probably already know your opinions so you won't have to think too long about them. So please do take 30s to click through, even if you have no intention of ever writing an email to this list.

On this final question:
> If so, what are we going to do about it?

I don't think we can answer this until we know what the Methods committee are going to do with the motion proposed in AOB about revisiting the whole decisions. I think we would want completely different responses if the MC decided to either actively engage in discussion on this list or if they tried to stick their heads in the sand with a couple of small pruning amendments. I suppose it's probably too early for anyone to know exactly *what* is thought in the methods committee about this?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list