[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Philip Earis]

Urrgh.  (Sorry for beginning another email with a guttural sound).

I have some problems with this, both overarching and specific.

I think it's important to decouple having a good descriptive framework of
methods (ie what is rung) with requirements for ringing (ie how it's
rung).  Tim's approach did this nicely.  The present Decisions (or your
proposed amendments) conflate the two.

Personally, I think the Methods Committee should have no remit in *how*
things are rung - decisions on simulators, corrections to shifts etc
aren't method related.

More pertinently, it just muddies the waters when you are proposing
changes both to what methods are allowed by the CC (eg false plain
courses) with how things are allowed to be rung.

It would have been much better to make changes with Tim's new framework,
rather than yet another incremental bodge.  You now have a real risk of
everything getting shot down in ignorant flames.

On the specifics, the changes are a bit of a balls up.  I'm referring to:

> Change 3.0(E)
> =============
>
> - Relax the requirement that ?Any shift or error in ringing shall be
> corrected immediately":
>
> Change Decision (D) A.10 to read, "Any shift or error in ringing shall
> be corrected as quickly as possible.?
>
> - Relax the requirement that says ?No error in calling shall be
> corrected later than during the change at which the call or change of
> method ... would properly take effect?:
>
> Change Decision (D) A.9 to read, "Errors in calling shall be corrected
> as quickly as possible."


So what does "as quickly as possible" mean?  There are two interpretations
to my mind:


1) As quickly as it is theoretically possible to make a correction.

- If this is the intention, then this is surely identical to the current
wording of "immediately".


2) As quickly as the conductor or band's skills render it possible for
them to sort out a swap.

- If this is the intention, then you're codifying different standards and
scenarios depending on the conductor.  So if you've got a novice conductor
who only finds it possible to tell if there's been a swap at the part-end
of a three-part peal, say, then is your intention to say the band can in
good faith swap a pair of bells over after perhaps a quarter of a peal and
all be well?

Moving on, what do you gain by changing (or even having at all) Decision
(D) A.9?  If I'm calling a peal of maximus and I miss out a block of
three, both the present and proposed Decision in theory compel me to
insert a different block of three at the earliest possible opportunity,
rather than at potentially better place. There are similar scenarios in
calling spliced minor, or even extents of Plain Bob Doubles.

Changing the current wording to what is proposed is potentially a way of
making the existing broken Decisions worse, and that's saying something.

It's this desire to try to write statutes for everything which has caused
a mess here, and will cause further messes and trouble in the future.

Fix the whole lot, don't try to patch up with "quick wins" that aren't fit
for purpose and which risk setting back much-needed meaningful reform.