[r-t] Survey #4: Naming of rotations. Results.

[Tim Barnes]

> MF:
> So. Pretty much as inconclusive as it's possible to be

Interesting.  My thought at this point is that since there's no consensus
for change, the status quo should prevail and we keep the restriction that
rotations may not be separately named.  It might perhaps be worth returning
to this question down the road after we've debated other items, to see if
future debate has changed anyone's mind in either direction on the rotation
question.

Right now I suggest a two-week rules holiday is in order!


> RAS:
> Would it be sensible to record the results of the various votes and any
any other consensus that has been formed somewhere for easy reference?  A
page on the the Change Ringing wiki is one possibility

I think that's a very good suggestion.  If we are ultimately successful in
developing a consensus for a new set of rules (admittedly a big if), the
next stage would be to consider how we might influence the decision-makers
as to the merits of these rules.  Having all the information on our votes
easily to hand would help in this.  Would anyone with a bit of available
time like to volunteer to take this on?


> Chris Adams:
> 1. Have a set of simple and clear rules that cover the 99% of what is
rung.
> 2. Have a special cases list for the methods that are worthy of ringing
but
fall outside the rules. As well as the usual method stuff, the list could
include a reason why it is included in the special cases.
> 3. The Methods Committee be custodians of the rules and special cases
list.
> Is this a sensible idea?

It could be, though I imagine many on this list would want this to be
something of a last resort, as a good part of the challenge in this
exercise is trying to create a framework that's as generic and consistent
as possible.

There are exceptions built into today's rules - Grandsire's method title is
just (e.g.) Grandsire Triples and not Grandsire Bob Triples, even though
the latter would be the consistent title.  Probably worth keeping the
exception approach in mind and coming back to it later on if we find there
are more questions like rotations where we don't have a consensus.  It
would be interesting at some point to find out if a single exception in the
rules to allow New Grandsire to be separately named would have majority
support.

Another anomaly (I think) is that Little Bob appears to be a method with no
name, since Little and Bob are classification terms.  But suggesting that
Grandsire in future becomes Grandsire Bob, and Little Bob becomes Plain
Little Bob, would probably lead to rioting in the churchyard, so some
exceptions may always be needed..

TJB