[r-t] Unclassified

[Ted Steele]

On 05/06/2016 15:39, John Harrison wrote:

>    Ted Steele  wrote:>
>> But the structure and rationale of all of these surely has been
>> determined by their designer,

> Of course

We agree.


> the designer had a rationale for the method, and he/she might also have had a rationale for a whole new class of ... method(s)

Makes no difference.


>  in which case there may be a fairly strong case for extending
> the official descriptive structure fairly quickly.

Or not; either way it's not immediately relevant. If time is to decide 
it will do so; in time.

>
> But it is also possible that the rationale for the new method doesn't make
> it clear how things will develop further, and so it isn't obvious how best
> to set up new definitions that encompass it.

Which is why no-one can agree.

>
>> (A designer) ..who has felt free to produce just what is required without regard to
>> formal constraints.
>
> I would be surprised if the method had 'no constraints'.

So would I; that's not what I said.


> It seems more likely that it will have been designed with some constraints, but that they
> will be different constraints (to a greater or lesser extent) than those
> that have already been categorised.

That's what I said.

>> Perhaps there is a better word to convey this
>

> That's what I was suggesting.

Me too, although I don't think the word matters much.
We'll get there; but will the journey be worth it? I am on the brink of 
having to cancel our annual ringing outing due to lack of support for a 
coach (already cancelled), and now not even enough to make plan B, a car 
outing, viable. Lots of invites out and no responses. Somehow I think 
that unclassified methods, interesting though they are,  will not save 
the day. I wonder if the Ringing Trends Committee needs info such as this!

Ted (escaping back to the sidelines).