[r-t] Practical Extension

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Johnson <andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

> I don't see a way to keep everyone happy.
>

Yes, there isn't one, and that applies to various aspects of the Decisions
revamp.  Whatever we do, a significant number of people will be unhappy.
E.g. from the limited data we have, it looks as though about 60-65% of
people agree with standardizing peals at 5000 changes (and therefore QPs at
1250, HPs at 2500 and Long Lengths at 10000), but about 35-40% feel
strongly that Triples must be 5040.


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Phillip Barnes <phil at piltdown.org.uk>
wrote:

> Is there a fundamental reason why method classification is required ... I’m
> guessing not - it’s an entirely man-made construct.
>

Yes, man-made, but easy to imagine how earlier ringers would have wanted to
put different types of methods into what they considered logical
groupings.  There's no consensus on what to do about classification --
historical continuity being the main concern.  The framework development
team was about evenly divided between the two classification approaches we
included on the website (Section 4 Alt A mostly keeps the existing system
in place, while 4 Alt B makes a limited number of simplifications).  The
recent consultation (the results of which I'm in the process of writing up
for a RW article) didn't help -- about 55% in favor of B and 45% in favor
of A.

And even the relatively limited changes in B lead to a lot of method titles
changing, and therefore historical ringing records needing a mapping table
to interpret:
https://cccbr.github.io/method_ringing_framework/altbmethodtitles.html

In the end, the framework team came up with a proposal that's about halfway
between A and B, so that's what we're going to put forward.


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Phillip Barnes <phil at piltdown.org.uk>
wrote:

> So my question is why do we persist and go even further with the same
> paradigm rather than finding another way?
>

We're not going any further -- we've only removed extension constraints,
not added any, with the main focus having been on explaining the current
rules more clearly than they are in today's Decisions.  Graham is planning
a bigger review of method extension (as part of his T&T workgroup plans)
once the initial framework is (hopefully) implemented.  Eliminating all
extension rules is one option, but in the absence of anything else leads to
the possibility of Cambridge S Eighteen, when rung, being named Twatt.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180801/ca6e2fd7/attachment-0001.html>