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

[Tim Barnes]

On Sep 2, 2015 8:23 AM, "Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy" <
neminicontradicente at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Rick - this topic didn't generate much debate within the sub-group.  The
debate we had on this subject on r-t before the sub-group was formed seemed
decisive enough that we didn't put it to a vote at the time.  The consensus
seemed to be that individual bands should be free to ring peals in whole
extents if they so choose, but that this shouldn't be a requirement - e.g.
a band might wish to ring a 5080 of Grandsire Triples to mark someone's
80th birthday.

But if you (or others) would like to see this question put to a vote on
r-t, I'd be happy to arrange that.

It would be a little messy to reintroduce this criterion because it
requires stage-specific and/or length-specific language (would QPs /
Half-Peals also need to be in whole extents below a certain stage?)  We
generally had a goal of keeping things as generic and consistent across
stages as possible.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150902/cf391a70/attachment-0003.html>