[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Fri Jan 23 21:59:44 UTC 2015

I guess I was also thinking that definitions of classifications such as 
Surprise, Little etc belong in section 3.

What I would aim for here is to preserve a few well-established naming 
conventions such as Surprise, Delight, Little, but otherwise do away with 
as much as possible.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:

>>> Stuff about when a band can officially name a method (how much do you have 
>>> to ring, etc?)
>> Personally I'm rather less interested in this bit.  It's an administrative 
>> issue rather than a technical one.  But, yes, it's an important component 
>> to the decisions.
> Personally I agree on the interest front.  However, it does seem to be 
> something that some people care about.  Part of my point here was that 
> historically this issue seems to have got all tangled up with 1 and 2, 
> resulting in a mess.  The point of my 1, 2 and 3 was to make the distinction 
> very clear, and to make the point that the rules in a later section should 
> have no bearing on the issues dealt with in earlier section.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list