[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Glenn Taylor <gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> I have no strong opinions about the notion of permitting methods
> that are false in the plain course. Without introducing a whole new
> pallet of descriptive baggage, however, is it intended that there be
> some annotation in the method collection to draw attention to this
> fact, as a failure to do so could theoretically result in someone
> accidentally selecting such a method to ring on its own for a peal?

And the harm in that is what, so long as they use a composition to which it
is true? While the creating of such a composition is often challenging
(though so is creating one of, say, Girton College Surprise), selecting and
proving one is pretty much the same as for any other method. Is someone any
more likely to ring something inappropriate for such a method than they are
for one with PU falseness?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time."
    -- Bill Gates, quoted by BBC News on 24 January 2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170321/fac6e1ce/attachment.html>