[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017

[Ted Steele]

On 16/04/2017 21:55, Mark Davies wrote:
> We've given up and gone for the minimal tweak of (D)B:
>
> https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Technical-motion-for-2017-3.pdf
>
>
> Comments welcome but probably too late for any major changes now.


I think with regret that some of this will lead to dispute at the 
meeting; (indeed if it is submitted as it stands then I must hope that 
it does), with the likely outcome that not even the useful bits around 
actual methods (widest definition thereof) are adopted. For goodness 
sake, why is the methods committee persisting in advocating things that 
are beyond its remit? It risks invoking opposition by the majority 
traditionalist membership and failing thereby to successfully introduce 
useful changes to the decisions around what is rung.

I refer primarily to the matters of peals being audible outside the 
tower; and to the awful mish-mash around the matter of simulators. We 
now have references to simulated bells as well as simulated sounds (and 
simulated means of sound production too). So there could be "peals" rung 
on non-bells (not-even necessarily bell-like items) producing non-bell 
sounds (no requirement either that they should sound like bells) 
producing simulated sounds (not sure what a simulated sound sounds like) 
that may be produced by simulated means. It is perhaps a blessing that 
these peals do not have to be audible outside the tower; perhaps that 
should actually be a requirement. At least I can agree that any such 
performances should be separately identified and recorded. In this 
though I might point out that these requirements clearly imply 
recognition of the fact that simulated "peals" are not peals in the same 
sense as conventional peals; which rather undermines the arguments for 
formalising their recognition.

Much of the rest I find confusing and I fear that this may be a not 
uncommon response. This is especially so with regard to proposals around 
mixed stage extents and variable cover touches in general.

Is plainer language not possible? I know it is incredibly difficult to 
be both plain and unambiguous but fear the wording is likely to so 
muddle some people as to make them instinctively reject it. Of course 
people on this list could readily explain it all, but that is not the 
point. if you want to introduce change do not wrap it up in language 
that is unclear to those who will vote upon it.

I will be asking my CC reps to vote against any motion that contains 
these proposals about simulators and audibility.

Ted