[r-t] Decisions

[Mark Davies]

Robin Woolley writes, somewhat contentiously,

> This current debate was predicated on the lie that the CC tells ringers
> what they may or may not ring. Careful persual of these latest decisions
> show that this is precisely what they wish to achieve.

To me, the central point is, are we, as change-ringers, able to innovate 
in method and composition design without constantly bumping into 
arbitrary restrictions or classification failures imposed by our ruling 
body?

With the current Decisions, no - there are useful methods which look 
like methods and form true compositions with other methods, which are 
not treated as methods. Also there are methods which have good 
extensions through all stages but, under the current rules, are not 
considered to extend because the classification is different at 
different stages (short course Royal methods).

With Tim's Decisions, yes - any block can be considered as a method and 
classified as such. There are no arbitrary classification divisions 
which prevent short-course methods being viewed as equivalent to and 
extensible from their long course parents.

Finally, I think Tim's set of definitions of terms is useful, but 
perhaps it should be viewed as a glossary for the rest of the document, 
rather than laying down in absolute terms what given change-ringing 
words are said to mean.

MBD