tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 22 16:32:35 UTC 2017
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:16 PM, King, Peter R <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk>
> The real problem I have is that as soon as we say "these are the ways that
> method X should be extended" then someone has to police it.
Writing Decisions often seems to involve choosing from among a set of
options that are all undesirable in some way.
In the case of extension, there are three choices:
1. Follow one or more algorithms, as is the approach today. The benefit
is that you have a fully objective process. But there is no known
algorithm that gives ideal results, so some percentage of results are
anomalous. There seems to be little tolerance for any anomalies (at least
among ringing theorists), even if an algorithm works in a good percentage
2. Have no extension rules at all. For example, Deva Surprise Major is a
generally well-regarded method that has not yet been named at higher
stages. It would seem a shame if, when Deva Surprise Royal is named, it
bore no resemblance to Deva Surprise Major. Ringers have come to expect
there to be some sort of relationship between methods at different stages
that have the same name.
3. Find a middle ground where there are guidelines for extension, but some
judgement is allowed. As Peter points out, the problem with this approach
is that it eventually requires someone to police it and be the final
arbiter. This sort of process generally only works well when the policing
is done by a respected institution that has a respected process for
appointing respected people to the policing body. We don't have this today
(but, optimistically, post-CRAG, we might have).
The question becomes which is the least worst approach. The rules subgroup
went with #3, but felt more debate was needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory