[r-t] CC Methods Committee Consultation
pje24 at cantab.net
Thu Mar 5 11:54:34 UTC 2015
I see, by chance, that the CC Methods Committee has published a
"Consultation" document online on its website -
Whilst it is good to finally see some (mandated) action following the agreed
motion at the May 2014 CC meeting, various aspects of the new "Consultation"
1) Transparency - the whole point of a consultation is to consult interested
stakeholders, in an open, transparent, unprejudiced way. This means the
consultation needs to be announced widely to stakeholders. Despite the
document being dated February 26, there's been nothing on this group to
announce the consultation, nor in the Ringing World, nor on BellBoard. I can
only assume no announcements have been made - can not?
2) Due process - the consultation does not seem to make any reference to the
deadline for feedback and responses. It only says, ominously:
"This document seeks to start the consultation by asking for views on
what we have Decisions for, and to understand what changes people think
might be required from where we are now. The Committee will
collect this input and report its findings with some recommendations and
options to the CC Administrative Committee at its meeting in March"
When in March is this meeting? What is the deadline for responses? How much
time have the committee allowed to collect the input, analyse it and produce
recommendations? I request one of the Committee members on this list to give
3) Whole premise of the consultation. The motion agreed at the 2014 meeting
was about a fundamental rethink about the principles and requirements of a
possible new or revised set of decisions. This was designed to allow the
whole spectrum of options - from a complete "blank page" fresh start, so no
change at all to the existing decisions. Nothing to be pre-empted.
However, the new document very sadly does not adhere to this, but very much
tries to twist the debate to be based around the current framework. The
majority of the document is a list of the current decisions, along with
defensive comments about why the author(s) feel they are supported.
Both illustrative and concerning is this paragraph from the beginning of the
"The current set of Decisions, although they might have their roots in
the first half of the twentieth century, have evolved over time to match
changes in ringing practice. It is therefore reasonable to start by
asking why it is that changes might be needed, and what those changes are,
rather than starting with an assertion that they are fundamentally broken"
The tone is clear - the possibility that the current decisions are
fundamentally broken is not to be considered, contrary to the agreed motion.
More information about the ringing-theory