[r-t] Time to vote?

[Tim Barnes]

With 60+ posts on rotations, we've probably mostly all said what we want to
by now.  Shall we make Tuesday the last day for comments, and vote on
Wednesday?

Would a suitable poll be to choose one of the following three options?

1. The existing restriction should remain, and rotations should continue
not to be permitted to be separately named.

2. The restriction should be eliminated, and rotations should be permitted
to be separately named.

3. The restriction should be modified, such that certain types of rotations
may be separately named, but others may not.  This modification is still to
be debated / developed.

A few people have indicated support for #3 but without a full proposal
being developed.  Including this option in the poll would let us see if it
has enough support to warrant further discussion on how the modification
might work.

Let's hope that whatever the result, it's decisive!


In the unlikely case there are still any undecided voters out there, below
are some responses to Graham's comments on my post.

Graham:
> ... it does not seem worth changing this
> convention. Furthermore, if we did this, why wouldn't we do the same for
> place notation inversions (Reverse Bob is Plain Bob etc).

Right, but I'm, of course, arguing in the other direction - that because
reversals (of non-palindromic methods) can get a new entry in the Method
Collections, and place notation inversions also get a new entry, it seems
inconsistent that rotations shouldn't also get their own entry in the
Collections, should anyone actually choose to name a rotation.

Graham:
> ... if not using complete leads in a
> composition, you need to state the start row number and the number of rows
> of the method referenced. This is how I have handled this problem
> generically in Composition Library.

Agreed, but it seems (perhaps just to me) a shame that the software could
have been simpler to learn and operate if it didn't have to deal with added
complexity like this in the rules.  Regardless, it's impressive software,
which I've used a number of times during this debate to test out method
questions.

TJB