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

[Matthew Frye]

On 9 Jun 2014, at 01:44, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
> Someone suggested a poll, so let's try it: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/76S7PSD

Results! 50 responses, more than I expected. Hello, lurkers.

(a) methods false in the plain course aren't a problem.

Agree                   80.00%  40
Disagree                10.00%   5
No Opinion/Don't Care    2.00%   1
Undecided                8.00%   4
Total	50

(b) the current "blocks" definition is a load of nonsense.

Agree                   76.00%  38
Disagree                 6.00%   3
No Opinion/Don't Care    2.00%   1
Undecided               16.00%   8
Total	50

If so, what are we going to do about it?

(all 34 responses reproduced at the end of this message)
It's a mix mostly along the lines of either "nothing's going to happen" or "complete re-write", but other thoughts too. One person suggested a riot.

(BTW, if anyone knows how to make the results visible to others please let me know)

I will leave interpretation/discussion of the results (if needed) to others, but this seems to have been a successful way to gauge the opinion of the list; if anyone wants to suggest another poll I'll be happy to put it up again (or you can yourself, it's a fairly simple process).

MF

- Peal is N rows or more and satisfies constraint [Q] from http://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/Shades_of_Truth. N might be 5000 (for preference), 5040, or 5040 if stage=7, 5000 otherwise - seems difficult to be excited about precisely. Quarter is anything of N/4 rows or more which is not a peal.
- Rescind the CC motion
- Start worrying more about what matters; how to make ringing family friendly and so enable more people to ring regulalry. Why else do peole take breaks of 25 years?
- Start afresh with the 'Decisions', the aim being to ensure consistent definition and nomenclature, and minimising any rules/decisions (ideally there would be none).
- Rewrite the technical decision from scratch
- Mostly, ignore it.
- Start again - define peal for recognition purposes only and define methods for description purposes only without interference between the two
- Try and sort it out like mature adults (something which seems to be beyond the ability of a great many ringers at the moment).
- Complete rewrite of Decisions
- Propose a new framework of definitions to replace the current decisions.
- Not a Lot
- Let people ring what they like as long as it's true!
- The ancients on the CC won't do anything
- bottom up revision
- Rewrite the decisions from scratch.
- It will probably have to be done for the CC by interested parties on this list.
- Start from a blank canvas
- Riot
- Reform the entire decisions.
- Get rid of blocks, allow methods to be false in the PC (we have A falseness defined - lets use it), keep the decision allowing more hunt bells.
- Seek concensus on an alternative through an assembled body of interested and qualified parties. Not sure how to define qualified!
- ask more important questions first, like whether 5040 should be the minimum for all peals
- start from scratch, simplify to a bare minimum
- Rewrite the decisions from scratch
- Argue with each other. :-(
- Roll the decisions back to an earlier time!
- Replace decisions with "Peals consist of 5000 or more changes beginning and ending with rounds".
- Allow methods that are false in the plain course and remove restrictions on the number of blows in one position.
- 2 - very little, the genie is out of the bottle now
- Don't change the method definitions, withdraw the blocks definition
- respect history, start again with compatible defintitions but a clean slate
- See my previous post! (TJB) Thanks for organizing this - will be very interesting to see the results.
- Try to influence the Council's officers to not entrust the Methods Committee with sole responsibility for fixing this.
- Don't know.