[r-t] CCCBR meeting

Philip Earis pje24 at cantab.net
Tue May 31 06:53:24 UTC 2016

Peter: "I have never understood the concept of a "non method" block"

Don: "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 

Don's analysis of the situation is by far the best I've seen.  It absolutely 
hits the nail on the head.

Peter: "It is good to hear that the classification is to be removed"

Sadly you are mistaken: as far as I'm aware there is nothing to suggest the 
classification is to be removed.  Some (but not all) of the criteria that 
see a method designated as a "non method block" have gone, and the 
classification is still there.

Moreover, because introducing "non method blocks" was the chosen "solution" 
by still-influential person(s) making the rules at the time, I am rather 
sceptical that the whole classification will be deleted.  Even with this 
year's tweaks, the Methods Committee's approach has been to be to try to 
patch up the existing wording - often making things even longer - rather 
than starting afresh from a more fit-for-purpose framework.

I would love it if the Methods Committee could now hold up its hands about 
non-method blocks, expunge the classification, admit that it made a mistake 
in bringing in this classification (and also with the lack of transparency 
and consultation), and endeavour to do better in the future.  I am not 
holding my breath.

One of the most pertinent points made at the CC meeting was by John 
Harrison, when he pointed out that even in the terms of their proposed 
"fundamental review" the Methods Committee were talking about what to do 
with "non compliant" performances, rather than rethinking the prescriptive 
mindset that leads the Committee to arbitrarily dumping some change ringing 
with a non-compliant label.

MBD et al - you've got a lot to address and I wish you well.  There has been 
a huge amount of open, collaborative development of a more appropriate 
descriptive framework on the ringing-theory sub-group, and I urge you to 
make use of this going forwards.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list