Re: Methods Committee terms of reference (was [rt-rules-subgroup] Re: Methods Committee meeting)

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:56 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> It is too succinct

That's a charge not often laid against me.

As Graham's proposal was in a message over ten days old, in a different thread, here is what I believe it was, so we all have the context firmly in mind:

> provide and maintain a definitive set of definitions for technical

> terms associated with change ringing including methods, method

> classification and extension, calls and performances [not just peal

> ringing].

>

> provide and maintain definitive libraries of all rung methods, with

> appropriate classification, references, and a record of historic

> names/titles where these have changed.

>

> provide and maintain standards for the electronic interchange of

> methods, compositions and performances.

>

> act as arbiter to resolve any conflicts that occur in method naming

> by different bands, or to request alternative names for methods that

> may be considered inappropriate or offensive.

>

> answer queries in interpretation of the above.

I have a few quibbles with this:

- The first chunk continues to hand the Methods Committee the One Ring to Rule Them All: why is the Methods Committee the one charged with telling us what terms we may or may not* use in compositions and in performance reports? While I doubt the need for any committee to be handed the One Ring, if one must, I think it is clear from the history here that it should *not* be the Methods Committee. That's the status quo, and has caused no end of pain. If we must hand that power to someone, lets at least try someone new in hopes of a better outcome. Doing the same thing over and over again, and hoping it results in a different outcome this time, is madness.

- I think it is too specific. For example, I, and I believe at least one, current member of the Methods Committee, believe it would be immensely useful and appropriate for the committee to produce an electronic tool that others can use to generate extensions of methods that meet the Council's rules on same (assuming we must have such rules; indeed, even if following such rules weren't mandatory such a tool would still be useful). I can see no place in this list for sticking such an effort. And there will undoubtedly be other, future things that we can't predict, but that it would be nice to have fall out of the terms of reference.

- "Provide and main standards" is, I believe, both wrong and an invitation to abuse. It should be something more like "facilitate the creation and maintenance of standards." Telling the Methods Committee they are to tell us how we should exchange things electronically is just wrong. They should be helping us, but not telling us The Right Way. If those who exchange things electronically want to set up some sort of standards body, fine; but a committee appointed by and from among a Council elected not for relevant skills and interests but for representation of, and typically reward for longevity in, local associations, with no input at all from those directly affected, is not the right way to do this at all.

- The repeated use of "definitive" is again instructing the Methods Committee that their proper role is to tell us what we may or many not do. This is just wrong, and perpetuates the problems we should be trying to solve.

- Similarly, "answer queries in the interpretation" implies the Committee has the final say. They should be assisting those attempting to understand and interpret things, not Laying Down the True Law. 

* If anyone disputes that this proposal does say the Methods Committee is charged with telling us what we may or many not call things, please explain what else "definitive" means in this context? Leaving aside the amusing apparent, though not quite real, redundancy of "definitive definitions", of course. :-)

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"This opened up the Vast space of possibilities we know as

multicellular life, a space previously unimaginable, to say

the least; prokaryotes are no doubt clueless on all topics.

                 -- Daniel Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

- The first chunk continues to hand the Methods Committee the One Ring to Rule Them All ... That's the status quo, and has caused no end of pain ... lets at least try someone new in hopes of a better outcome.

I think we may need to take a short term and medium/long term view here.  It seems CRAG is moving towards proposing a new structure for the central organization that would be implemented over about a 2-3 year period, and that would be a better time for a fuller restructuring of roles and responsibilities.  I'd probably be in favor of a separate group to look after definitions and requirements, keeping this work separate from the practical work of compiling method, composition and performance collections.  But in the interests of getting something done in the short term (i.e. this May), it seems better to assume responsibility for the Decisions stays with the MC for now.

 

- I think it is too specific ...

I liked Don's inclusion of "... and to provide tools and publications aiding in the understanding and creation of methods." -- I included something similar below.  E.g. CompLib's ability to filter and analyse methods is very useful.

- "Provide and main standards" is, I believe, both wrong and an invitation to abuse. It should be something more like "facilitate the creation and maintenance of standards."

Agree with facilitate rather than provide.

Also, Graham didn't use the term "rules" or similar, only definitions.  While this will be more palatable to some, I think it's a stretch to say things like "handbells are retained in hand" or "a method is named by ringing it in a performance of at least 1250 changes" are definitions.  To me these are simply rules of the game, and it seems more honest to call them that, rather than try and construe ringing as some pure art form to which rules shouldn't apply.  In the subgroup's previous documents, we used the term "requirements" rather than rules, so I've used this below.

So perhaps:

- Provide and maintain the Council's definitions and requirements for change ringing, including methods, method classification, method extension, calls, compositions and performances.

- Compile and maintain a library of all named methods, with classification, appropriate references, and a record of historic names where these have changed.

- Provide tools and publications that aid in the understanding and analysis of methods.

- Act as arbiter to resolve any conflicts that occur in method naming by different bands, or to request alternative names for methods that may be considered inappropriate.

- Facilitate the creation and maintenance of standards for the electronic interchange of methods, compositions and performances.

- Answer questions arising from the ringing community on the above.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFWJ_OJSJ3-dPEQB-KdC...@mail.gmail.com>,

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:
> > It is too succinct

> That's a charge not often laid against me.

Bask in the glory!

> > provide and maintain a definitive set of definitions ...

> why is the Methods Committee the one charged with telling us what terms

> we may or may not* use ...

It isn't. But someone has to 'own' the definitions, ie be responsible for
maintaining and updating them. The publishers of the OED (other
dictionaries are available) does not tell us what words we can and cannot
use. It has rigorous processes to ensure that it provides an authoritative
source that tracks English usage as closely as possible.

Likewise:

> to tell us how we should exchange things electronically is just wrong.

A communication standard requires some central agent to coordinate it.
Letting everyone invent or modify their own standards and hoping that they
will naturally converge doesn't usually work. However, like the
dictionary, there is an associated responsibility on the standards body to
work with potential users to ensure that the standards meet their needs.

--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> A communication standard requires some central agent to coordinate it.

Which central agent should be decided by the consumers of that standard, not by a bunch of folks elected to the Central Council to provide vaguely proportional representation for territorial associations the majority of which probably don't even contain any members who directly use such standards.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to

choose from."      -- Andrew S Tannenbaum, _Computer Networks_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> Which central agent should be decided by the consumers of that standard,
> not by a bunch of folks elected to the Central Council to provide
> vaguely proportional representation for territorial associations the
> majority of which probably don't even contain any members who directly
> use such standards.

This is a strange attitude, isn't it Don? The associations affiliated to
the Central Council are all full of method ringers. Are there any reps
who don't ring methods? This isn't about some technical elite - this is
about curating the method libraries for the benefit of all ringers.

MBD

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Graham John]

I'm happy with Tim's amendments, although "Provide" in "Provide tools and publications" perhaps suffers the same problem as the original "provide standards for electronic interchange". May be "Commission" would be better.

I also don't think it matters for the moment whether these objectives are owned by the methods committee or something else. Committees seem a rather unwieldy way of organising things when in many cases all you want is to assign individuals to each job that needs to be done.

Graham 

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> > Which central agent should be decided by the consumers of that standard,

> > not by a bunch of folks elected to the Central Council to provide

> > vaguely proportional representation for territorial associations the

> > majority of which probably don't even contain any members who directly

> > use such standards.

> 

> This is a strange attitude, isn't it Don? The associations

> affiliated to the Central Council are all full of method ringers.

> Are there any reps who don't ring methods? This isn't about some

> technical elite - this is about curating the method libraries for

> the benefit of all ringers.

But this point wasn't about methods, or curating a library, it was about standards for electronic interchange. You appear to be arguing for the equivalent of my twelve year old daughter deciding who, among her peers, should set standards for electronic funds interchange between banks simply because she uses money. Knowing how to ring Cambridge is of little use in deciding how best to move bits between machines.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"The purpose of having a purpose is so we can have a

fulfilling journey."        -- Donald Knuth, during a lecture

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAHe9+AeyuaDpsN=gnn2SdG+5VyCHOzJdYay-5tL06Li=Kmx...@mail.gmail.com>,

Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> I also don't think it matters for the moment whether these objectives
> are owned by the methods committee or something else. Committees seem a
> rather unwieldy way of organising things when in many cases all you want
> is to assign individuals to each job that needs to be done.

Yes, in practice work being done relies on individuals, but having the
responsibility rest with some formal organisation such as a committee
provides continuity of ownership and a mechanism for re-distribution and/or
reallocation when necessary.

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:29 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> having the responsibility rest with some formal organisation such as

> a committee provides continuity of ownership and a mechanism for

> re-distribution and/or reallocation when necessary.

The experience of the last few years shows it is also a convenient way to dodge responsibility and accountability, and generally avoid having to get something done. And, recent experience also shows, to *avoid* needed reallocation. And the way membership on the Council's permanent committees is voted, that "continuity" thing is perhaps more a bottleneck than a virtue, since it takes a long time to make any significant change. I hope the CRAG people find a better way to provide continuity and a mechanism for re-distribution and/or reallocation when necessary.

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"A committee is the only known form of life with a hundred bellies

and no brain."    -- Robert Heinlein, _Methuselah's Children_

[Mark Davies]

On 08/02/2017 01:20, Don Morrison wrote:
> You appear to be arguing for the equivalent of my twelve year old
> daughter deciding who, among her peers, should set standards for
> electronic funds interchange between banks simply because she uses
> money. Knowing how to ring Cambridge is of little use in deciding how
> best to move bits between machines.

It's a balance, Don, isn't it. Of course you need expert and
knowledgeable people working on stuff to get the best results. But as
you yourself have pointed out many times in the past, you don't want
complete control over everything devolved to (for example!) a single
technical expert who doesn't listen to anyone else. The views of
ordinary ringers need to be taken into account, and technical committees
do need to be accountable to the wider world.