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

[Simon Humphrey]

Tim Barnes:

> 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.  

But the status quo is inconsistent.  Reversals of asymmetric Minor methods
are allowed to be named differently, the reversal of Grandsire is not.

Like PJE, I too would like to know what is happening to the "fundamental
review" of the existing decisions, but have no great hope that anything will
emerge.  Asking the Methods Committee to report on this is like asking
turkeys to vote for Christmas.  They will probably say (and believe) they've
carried out a fundamental review and nothing of any significance needs to be
changed.
The alternative set of decisions that this list has been banging on and on
about are not fundamentally any different from the current set.  Just
different.

SH