[r-t] Rules (was A date to pencil into your calendar)

Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy neminicontradicente at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 2 21:19:51 UTC 2015

Incidentally, a somewhat minor point:

Given how anarchic this document is in other ways, I'm a bit surprised at
how timidly conservative it is when it comes to multi-stage 'standard
performances'. (See section K.9.) Why shouldn't people ring minor and
major? Or, indeed, minor, triples, and major?


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/attachments/20150902/5d9f2e8d/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list