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

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 15:35:03 UTC 2015

On Sep 2, 2015 4:17 PM, "Chris02" <chris02 at shropshirelad.plus.com> wrote:
> Is my understanding correct that whole pull Plain Bob Doubles or Minor
could be rung in a peal? It would use the identity change and a standard
calling would produce a double extent. If so, I assume it would be called
Plain Place Doubles / Minor.

Yes, agree these two new methods could be rung in a peal and named under
this proposal.  Also agree they would be "Place" methods.  Obviously at
Triples and above, a large number of changes needs to be rung to overcome
falseness, so at higher numbers, ringing in whole pulls would generally be
a 'non-standard' performance under this proposal document.

> Also, is it intended to redo the bit on extension?

There's still a discussion in progress in the sub-group on whether the
extension wording in v6.2 is too loose.  An alternative proposal is along
the lines that the MC maintains a collection of recognized extension
techniques, one of which 'should' be used in extending a method.  If a
different technique is used, it should be submitted to the MC for potential
inclusion in the collection.  The MC continues to retain a veto over
proposed new method names.  This is still being fleshed out, but possibly
will be a topic to bring to a vote on r-t.

Another question we haven't yet tackled in the sub-group is how to handle
Doubles Variations in the proposal document.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150902/d9225c6e/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list