[r-t] The important points

[Tim Barnes]

> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> And I couched the whole thing as an
> amendment to the existing "Decisions". It would certainly be quite nice
to
> rephrase the whole thing in more natural English, as in an example I have
in
> my inbox from a Mr Tim Barnes.

I should explain.  These past few days I've been confined to my house
recovering from some surgery (everything's fine).  Taking a stab at
improving the decisions has been on my bucket list for 25+ years since I
first encountered them.  The combination of being temporarily incapacitated
with more time on my hands than usual, and the recent focus on the current
state of the decisions, prompted me to take this stab and get it out of my
system.  It hopefully builds on what others have done in this area.

I'll post a link to a draft in the next few days in case anyone would like
to review.  A very small group is kindly giving feedback offline at the
moment.  I'm not looking to disrupt any other efforts that are underway to
revamp the decisions.  I will soon be off the sick-list so this will be a
short-lived endeavor, and at most I hope the draft might provide some
useful input for the overall cause.

As many have suggested would be helpful, the draft tries to separate
definitions from requirements, provide a mechanism for updating
requirements as ringing evolves, and use plain language wherever possible.
 It also starts from the ground up, as opposed to amending the existing
decisions.

TJB



On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Philip Earis writes,
>
>  Mark, in the nicest possible way your "Norwich Axioms" were
>>
> > fatally flawed because they started with the existing
> > patched-up Decisions as the framework and tried to
> > improve things by deleting some of the crazier bits.
>
> With all due respect Philip, that was absolutely not the case. The
> underlying framework is quite independent, and, I would argue, clean,
> orthogonal and theoretically sound.
>
> Of course the axioms were based on the existing ideas of what is a hunt
> bell, what is a treble-dodging path, and so on. And I couched the whole
> thing as an amendment to the existing "Decisions". It would certainly be
> quite nice to rephrase the whole thing in more natural English, as in an
> example I have in my inbox from a Mr Tim Barnes.
>
> But, I think the Norwich Axioms would have been a whole lot better than
> what we have now. I think the fatal flaw was the mysterious way supporters
> got elected to the Methods Committee but then failed to make anything
> change!
>
> MBD
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>