[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Richard Grimmett]

On 21/03/2017 12:25, Mark Davies wrote:
> 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.


In plain methods the error should be corrected within one lead. With 
stedman within one six.


Richard


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus