[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM, King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk>
wrote:
> I have never understood the concept of a "non method" block.

It's really a very simple concept. There are properties a method can have
that some people, including people who used to have the power to make
rules, didn't find to their own taste, and they tried to make rules
discouraging others from ringing them, primarily by pretending they didn't
exist. Other, well respected ringers chose to ring them anyway, and
eventually the people who made the rules couldn't keep pretending such
methods didn't exist. So they made up a whole, new category for methods
they don't like, and gave it the thoroughly discouraging name of
"non-method blocks", making it official that, while they might exist, they
still aren't methods.  And, at the same time, they didn't let people use
the same calls in them as you can in real methods, didn't let them include
them as first class citizens in spliced (which is particularly odd, since
that is where they have been most commonly rung by well-respected
ringers!), and didn't let them name them just by ringing extents of them,
like you can with methods the rule makers like.

What I think I may find saddest about this whole thing is that a
substantial majority of those commenting on the idea of non-methods before
they were introduced said, very loudly, that they were a bad idea and
shouldn't be introduced. But the people who made the rules then didn't like
listening to what anyone else had to say.

The good news is that the people that make the rules now seem far more
inclined to listen. And the properties that consign methods to non-method
limbo are slowly being eroded. The people that make the rules now can see
there is a problem, and seem far less keen on inflicting their own,
personal tastes than did their predecessors. Though, sadly, they don't seem
quite ready yet to say "you know, these non-method blocks were a really bad
idea". With luck, that will come.

I'm sure many of the principles in this tale would say I'm being unfair,
and try to spin it differently. But from where I'm sitting, and I've been
watching closely, and used to be a Council member, that's sure what it
looks like.

And, of course, there is a fair bit of overlap between who "used to make
the rules" and who "makes the rules now". Fortunately people change; and,
perhaps even more importantly, so do collections of people, particularly as
the personnel shuffle about a bit, and priorities change. The Central
Council is growing up. Glacially slowly, but at least it's on the move;
maybe it's a symptom of global warming (speaking of things people try to
pretend don't exist :-).



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The Pit Spit's persistent popularity is a global demonstration that
healthy eating, deep breathing and physical exercise can be
accomplished simultaneously, in public, with only a minimal loss of
dignity."                                            -- Herb Teichman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160530/af7fb3eb/attachment-0002.html>