[r-t] Time to vote?

[Richard Smith]

Graham John wrote:

> I don't understand point 3. " The current restriction should be modified,
> such that certain types of rotations may be separately named, but others may
> not."
>
> What types of rotation are there?

At one level, they're all the same: they take changes from 
one and put them on the other end.  But the effect is not 
the same, and you might choose to allow rotations that 
have certain effects to have distinct names, but not allow 
them to be separately named in the general case.

For example, you might decide that where a rotation 
preserves the path of the primary hunt (as does the rotation 
from Grandsire to New Grandsire, or from Arlesey to Helen), 
the rotations should be allowed separate names.  But you 
might decide that in the more general case (e.g. Glasgow 
to Glasgow-snap-start) they should not.

It's not an intrisically unreasonable position to hold, 
though to me it feels like it is introducing another special 
case of the sort the current Decisions are overly full of.

RAS