[r-t] CCCBR Meeting

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Richard Grimmett <richard at grimmett.org>
> wrote:
> > Does it open up the option of a record length of maor od 8! plus a bit?
>
> Sadly, no (unless they amended the motion it at the meeting, which seems
> unlikely). Rather they continued the long, unfortunate tradition of
> describing things in collections of special case clauses, and this one only
> applied to minimus, doubles, minor and triples (plus all the other special
> cases dealing with variable cover and mixed stages, but still all below
> major).
>
> Can you imagine someone (well, four, or eight, people) ringing a 50,000 of
> major with notice and umpires, and some fool martinet trying to claim they
> haven't actually rung a peal?
>

Although, arguably, the Decisions already allow for peals of major and
above that exceed an extent.  True isn't defined in the current Decisions.
Shades of Truth aside, there are probably two main ways to define true:
 Either that each possible row appears 0 or 1 times; or that each possible
row appears n or n+1 times, where n is zero or a positive integer.  The
former precludes more than an extent, but the latter allows it.

In an email from Peter Niblett that was forwarded to the subgroup, he said
that one of the aims of motion G at Monday's meeting was to establish the n
/ n+1 approach for peals of Doubles and Minor.  Given this, and with motion
G passing on Monday, it seems unlikely there would be CC opposition to
applying n / n+1 at higher stages if a new Major record length were rung.
And I think it's high time the current major record is broken -- it's stood
for far too long!

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160602/fe0af874/attachment-0002.html>