[r-t] Definitions so far

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> It is hard, perhaps impossible, to come up with some definition that
> encompasses things we've not yet imagined. But our inability to do
> so in the past has caused the current decisions to be the baroque
> collection of patches and after thoughts that they are

I don't think that's quite right, Don. It's the inability of the MC to 
deal sensibly with *existing* innovations that has caused the problems, 
not anyone's attempt to predict all possible futures.

I feel strongly that we should absolutely not try to anticipate 
innovation. Therein lies mission creep and project failure. We are in 
danger of this!

Innovation is the job of real ringers out there. Our job is more dull: 
find a nice way of describing what is currently being rung. That 
includes methods with any number of hunt bells, any number of leads, and 
false in the plain course.

I am sorry to drone on about this. But there is a job to be done, and we 
won't do it unless we focus narrowly, and also accept that whatever we 
propose must fit into and be accepted by the general conventions of 
ordinary ringers.

MBD