[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Jun 2 21:06:11 UTC 2016
Tim Barnes writes,
> With an aim of making things as simple, generic and consistent as possible,
> carving out certain groups of methods, such as the quarks, for
> "non-classification classification" special treatment seems to me to be a
> step in the wrong direction.
Yes, I agree, and I also think that methods probably shouldn't classify
according to how people learn them, since this is so variable anyway. It
is however nice when it is possible to classify methods in such a way as
to be compatible with the compositions they are rung to.
There's a balance to be struck here. You can certainly have too much
classification. It doesn't make sense to stratify methods which are in
fact very similar to each other, or can even extend one another (as I
mentioned before, we have this at the moment with short-course methods).
On the other hand a bit of classification is useful so that people can
tell from the name the general sort of beast they're looking at.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the ringing-theory