[r-t] Framework v2 (John Harrison)

[Richard Bimson]

It would appear in Council Decisions that the naming requirements do only date back to 1969.

The 1955 revision of the decisions was, as I read it, a full revision, replacing previous decisions.  http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccmr1955.htm#handbook  There appears to be no mention on the length that needed to be rung in order to name a method.  As an aside, the Council's move away from claiming the right to name methods appears to date back to as early as 1926 (http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccr1955.htm) and was re-affirmed in the 1955 decisions.

There appears to have been no amendments to the naming requirements between 1955 and the 1969 revision in Council minutes or reports.

However, in terms of practice, per RW/1969p600 (article on method names) it is noted that after the first collection of legitimate methods in 1907, where many Minor methods were unnamed "there was as a result an immediate rush by Minor bands in various parts of the country to ring 720s of the un-named methods and thus earn the right to name them".  There are further references on Names of methods in the RW Index 191--2004 which I have not looked up (mainly 1920s).

Research, here, however, has been limited to documents available on methods.org.uk and the combined RW Indes.
Richard




________________________________
From: ringing-theory <ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.org> on behalf of ringing-theory-request at bellringers.org <ringing-theory-request at bellringers.org>
Sent: 15 June 2021 11:00
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.org <ringing-theory at bellringers.org>
Subject: ringing-theory Digest, Vol 194, Issue 5

Send ringing-theory mailing list submissions to
        ringing-theory at bellringers.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ringing-theory-request at bellringers.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ringing-theory-owner at bellringers.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ringing-theory digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Framework v2 (John Harrison)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:58:37 +0100
From: John Harrison <john at jaharrison.me.uk>
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.org
Subject: Re: [r-t] Framework v2
Message-ID: <593c6aa65bjohn at jaharrison.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

In article
<CA+16xEdsai9Z9ag0h2xoHdL0prFNEVfdP77H9N3B0E0Kqh+cjw at mail.gmail.com>,
   Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> ... standardizing on a QP are consistency across stages ... to 'earn'
> naming rights.  ... would be overturning several centuries of method
> ringing practice.

Is that true?  AFIA there were no rules about naming methods until the CC
decided to try to impose some order.

In the 1920s the Council still claimed the right to name methods itself but
later relented.  Does anyone know when the current rule (peal on 7+ and
extent on 6-) was first formalised?  It's in the 1968 Decisions but I can't
track down when it was first accepted.

--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
Using 4té and ARMX6, both running RISC OS



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.org
https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory


------------------------------

End of ringing-theory Digest, Vol 194, Issue 5
**********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20210615/76065be6/attachment.html>