[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Mar 21 12:25:44 UTC 2017

Philip - you may be right in that we shouldn't be making some of these 
changes this year. However there was a feeling on the committee that we 
should do *something*. I was strongly of the view that the remaining 
Blocks ought to be tackled, and in this area the false-method change 
looked like it was easy enough to do. The other changes also looked easy 
and sensible improvements to the status quo.

Would you have us do nothing? Or implement a reduced set of changes?

On Change 3.0(E), obviously this has always been ignored in the past 
anyway, but to my mind it is useful to set some standards. No, ringing 
doesn't have to be perfect, but neither is it good to ring for course 
after course with bells swapped over. Is this enforceable? No. Should it 
be stated somewhere? Yes, I think there's no harm in that, and some good.

Perhaps there are some better words we could use, though. How about 
"Errors in calling should be corrected quickly". I think it's important 
to convey an intention here - "you can't let errors creep into a peal 
and stay there for too long" - but without being prescriptive.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list