[r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar

Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy neminicontradicente at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 2 02:53:11 UTC 2015

Thanks for the document, Tim. That's very interesting.

Based on a cursory read, it appears that 'peal' is on track to be redefined
so as not to require full extents (or full multi-extent round blocks) for
triples and below. Was this matter discussed and debated much? How
difficult would it be to revise this proposal to reintroduce that criterion?


On 29 August 2015 at 16:28, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Chris02 <chris02 at shropshirelad.plus.com>
> wrote:
>> What happened to the attempt by this group to frame a new set of
>> rules/decisions? Is it still alive or was it far more difficult than some
>> of those quick to criticise the Methods committee thought?
> Chris - it certainly hasn't been straightforward.  I've been meaning to
> post an update to this list for a while - lack of time is always the
> challenge.
> About 25 people joined the r-t rules sub-group, and over the past six
> months we've worked (fairly slowly, given limited available time to spend
> on this) through about 20 iterations of a proposal document, a process that
> generated around 500 posts to the sub-group list.  The latest version of
> the proposal document is attached.
> The plan is to try and wrap up this proposal document by the end of
> September so that it can be submitted to the MC, hopefully as useful input
> to the bigger CC review.  Those who are already familiar with the existing
> Decisions will be able to quickly glean what would change and what would
> remain the same under this proposal document.  As an aid to those less
> familiar with the current Decisions, we are also working on a companion
> document that provides an analysis of what might be considered the "rule
> changes" under this proposal (there are around 30 of them), and which also
> provides some additional background and information.
> Comments welcomed - what would be especially helpful at this stage would
> be the identification of any big flaws that we've missed, or any situations
> that aren't handled.  The document is about a 20-minute read.  As
> previously noted, this exercise has always been intended to be a
> constructive contribution to the debate and process of updating the current
> Decisions.  I don't think anyone expects there to be unanimity in deciding
> if and how the current Decisions should change, but this proposal document
> hopefully at least serves to show what a possible update could look like.
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20150901/a32a13e5/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list