[r-t] Framework v2

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 19:11:37 BST 2021

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:00 AM Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for the feedback -- very helpful.  We've also received 3 other
submissions to the consultation that object to this change (and none
supporting it), so it looks as though the outcome will be to keep the
option to name a new method via an extent in version 2.

The arguments for standardizing on a QP are consistency across stages,
slightly simpler naming requirements, and requiring a certain amount of
effort (at least ~40 mins of ringing) to 'earn' naming rights.  But as you
point out, this would be overturning several centuries of method ringing
practice.  Given the strong precedent, there would probably need to be
something like 80-90% agreement in the ringing community to make a change
like this without causing undue controversy.  The objections received to
date suggest there isn't this level of support, so unless we receive a very
large number of responses in favor of this change, we'll remove it from v2.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20210613/f6659d4f/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list