[r-t] Methods Committee review of decisions

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 03:00:15 UTC 2015

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, on the plus side, it is a review.  Not sure I would describe it as
> fundamental.

I agree it's a plus, although as described by the MC, the review does
appear to be more limited than many of us think is needed.  The MC has
invited comments, so does it now make sense for the ringing-theory list to
work towards producing a document that contains our recommendations for
changes to the Decisions, which we then submit to the MC?

At the same time, I'm also wondering if it's practical for the r-t list to
develop such a document through back-and-forth emails on this list.  We've
had multiple rounds of emails just to try to define 'row', so the volume of
traffic would likely become very large.  I'm conscious there are 170+
people on this list who aren't taking part in the rules polls, so not sure
it's appropriate to impose the collective editing of a document on them.
Should we form a sub-group made up of those who would like to actively
participate in developing a recommendations document?  I would envisage we
continue holding polls on the r-t list to gauge opinions on different
questions (there are lots more questions to answer..), and would also
envisage the sub-group keeping the main list regularly updated on progress.

I was interested to read the definitions that RAS posted.  I wasn't
previously aware of these, and clearly a lot of very good thought has gone
into them.  A sub-group, for example, might start with these definitions
and discuss how they would be incorporated into a recommendations document
to the MC.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150117/a78c79ff/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list