[r-t] Framework v2

Philip Earis pje24 at cantab.net
Thu Jun 10 12:58:04 BST 2021

Thanks as ever Tim et al for your work and transparency around developing
the Framework.

There is one particular new proposal that concerns me - "We’re therefore
proposing in v2 that the minimum length to be rung in order to name a new
method is a quarter peal".  This seems seriously misguided and retrograde
to me.

I've rung various notable new methods by eg ringing an extent (120) of
doubles.  This was freely permissible not just in the 'recent dark ages'
(see eg examples at
but also there are historic precedents going back to the dawn of ringing
in the 17th century.

It seems very wrong to now try to restrict this.  The given rationale in
the RW article doesn't seem to make any sense - there isn't a problem of
minimus ringers causing havoc by naming extents.

I'm fine with the suggestion that new methods can only be rung with
all-human bands. But please don't go down this reactionary rabbit hole of
mandating qp lengths to name new methods - it runs contrary to everything
the Framework is about.

On Wed, June 9, 2021 13:45, Tim Barnes wrote:
> For anyone interested, the draft of the 2nd version of the CC's Framework
>  for Method Ringing has been completed and we are now seeking any
> feedback from the ringing community on the proposed updates.
> If you would like to review draft v2 and provide any comments,
> instructions for doing so are at https://framework.cccbr.org.uk.
> An article summarizing the v2 changes appeared on pages 506-507 of the
> June
> 4th 2021 Ringing World.  This article can also be found in section G.B.1
> of v2.
> The consultation closes on Friday July 16th 2021.
> Regards
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list