Rules subgroup update

[Tim Barnes]

All – As we approach the 2016 CC meeting, I thought it might be worth spending some time over the next 6 weeks or so revisiting the draft Decisions document that we submitted to the MC last October.  There were a few areas where we had to cut short our debate in order to meet the deadline for submitting the draft.  Having a more complete proposal ready before the 2016 CC meeting may be useful in highlighting the lack of progress on the Decisions review by the MC, and, depending on what happens at the 2016 meeting (if anything), setting things up to begin a more coordinated campaign for action at the 2017 meeting.

 

Following the consultation meeting organized by the MC last October at Southwark, an email thread started among a smaller group who had attended the meeting, initially asking if there had been any subsequent progress by the MC.  This thread quickly turned into a broader Decisions discussion.  With the smaller group’s permission, I have copied this thread (comprising 38 emails) below, so that others in the subgroup have a chance to read it if they would like to, and so that it forms part of the subgroup’s archives.  These messages are posted below in chronological order (i.e. read from top to bottom).  The attachment to this email is for message 20 below.

 

Two of the areas highlighted as needing more work are:

 

1. Considering whether to broaden the definition of a peal (and other lengths) so that many of the 'standard performance' requirements currently in Section K would effectively move to Section P (Performance Reporting) where they would be disclosed if not followed – the 'norms' approach.

 

2. Incorporating layered method ringing, such as a 12-bell performance rung using two Minor methods.

 

There are no doubt other areas that would also benefit from being revisited.  As a start, I will send out an updated version of the document in the next few days that tries to incorporate 1 and 2 above.

 

Regards

Tim

 

 

 

*** 1 ***

 

From: gra...@changeringing.co.uk [mailto:gra...@changeringing.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 6:10 AM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Decisions decisions

 

Two months have passed since the meeting at Southwark. Is anyone aware of any progress being made since then?

 

Graham

 

 

 

*** 2 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 6:49 AM
To: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Cc: dad...@gmail.com; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; tjbar...@gmail.com; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; ric...@ex-parrot.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Graham

 

> Is anyone aware of any progress being made since then?

 

Yes, but not what you were thinking of! 

 

I have written a series of articles for Ringing World aimed at the general reader.  I am about to circulate them for private comment to a few people - non-expert target audience as well as experts.

 

If you would like to comment, please let me know.

 

I will of course ask Peter about the main consultation so I can refer to it in the articles.

 

Regards

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 3 ***

 

From: David Richards [mailto:dad...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 7:13 AM
To: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Cc: Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Dear Graham,

 

 

On 9 December 2015 at 11:10, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

Two months have passed since the meeting at Southwark. Is anyone aware of any progress being made since then?

 

 

Sadly the answer is quite a definite 'no' within the methods committee.

There was a small amount of traffic within the methods committee the week after the meeting at Southwark - Mr Woolley attempted to 'summarise' the Southwark meeting by e-mail. I don't think it really captured the scope and feeling of what had been discussed at all.

 

Peter gave a summary at the Admin Committee meeting in October - there was a 'promise' made that a write-up of the Admin Committee meeting would be made public [which should have included a formal timetable of action directly from the Methods committee]. I was hopeful that this might be in the form of minutes, however, I fear that the notes on RW p.1096 is the total sum ever to be published. It simply says:

 

'Discussion of progress on Decisions, following good open meeting at Southwark on 11th October.'

[Does that sound like 'I transmitted a new entry off to the editor - he had to trim it a bit, but it's still an improvement' ?]

 

I think it's fair to say that Peter is still unsure how to engage people who have not, so far, been particularly involved in the debate. I also have a fear [as mentioned at the time] that the Southwark meeting's endorsement of 'doing it right is more important than doing it quickly' does mean that there is no perceived urgency to get that process in place.

 

Sorry the message isn't more positive - I think there is a genuine desire to look at it within the methods committee, however, we're certainly lacking a 'champion' of reform. Of the 5 members of the methods committee, I don't think I'm overstepping the mark to say that I'd be the most obvious choice within the group (based on the intersection of willingness to give time to it and a desire for ground-up reform), however, I have reasonably little time remaining to dedicate to it.

Peter has suggested co-opting at least one new member to the methods committee with the single remit of focussing on alterations to the decisions - I think that's a good idea from the point of view of getting things done - there's nothing like have a single, clear priority for focussing the attention! I'm not sure whether Peter has progressed his thoughts as far who that could/should be.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

 

 

 

*** 4 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Earis [mailto:pj...@cantab.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 9:34 AM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

 

>> Two months have passed since the meeting at Southwark. Is anyone aware of any progress being made since then?

>> 

> 

> Sadly the answer is quite a definite 'no' within the methods committee.

 

Thanks for the update, Dave. I appreciate you answering in depth and candidly, even though the update is frustratingly predictable.

 

Where I am especially puzzled here is that the task isn't so daunting, in that the Methods Committee don't need to start from a zero baseline....many many hours of input, revisions and improvement have fed into the process Tim coordinated. A plausible framework has resulted from this.

 

My understanding at the end of the Southwark meeting (admittedly based on the recordings and Richard's notes, given my feed to the meeting went down) was that a concrete agreed action was for the MC to go through Tim's framework in detail, to provide a response to this, and thereby to consider the framework or a further iteration for adoption / presenting to the whole Council.

 

This is a clear and defined action...surely this can be done without further obfuscation?

 

"Peter has suggested co-opting at least one new member to the methods committee with the single remit of focussing on alterations to the decisions...I'm not sure whether Peter has progressed his thoughts as far who that could/should be"

 

I await the announcement that Tony Smith has been reappointed thus!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

*** 5 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Smith [mailto:ric...@ex-parrot.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:02 AM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

David Richards wrote:

 

> Peter has suggested co-opting at least one new member to the methods

> committee with the single remit of focussing on alterations to the

> decisions - I think that's a good idea from the point of view of

> getting things done - there's nothing like have a single, clear

> priority for focussing the attention!

 

This *could* be very good, if it's someone who is in favour of reform and broadly tuned in to what's needed.  As I understand it, the committee currently has two pro-reform votes.  A third vote could carry it, as I don't think Peter will necessarily be against, especially if he's content that an adequate process of consultation has been followed.

 

Richard

 

 

 

*** 6 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 11:14 AM
To: Philip Earis <pj...@cantab.net>
Cc: li...@simpleigh.com; ric...@ex-parrot.com; tjbar...@gmail.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; d...@ringing.org; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

PJE

 

> the task isn't so daunting, ...My understanding at the end of the

> Southwark meeting ... agreed action ... go through Tim's framework ....

> ...surely this can be done without further obfuscation?

 

I think it is deeper than that.  One of the strong messages I have pushed since the CC meeting last year is that it's not enough to get consensus among the technical experts about the details.  Revision of the Decisions should also reflect a consensus of the wider ringing community about the role and principles embodied by the Decisions.

 

My reading of Peter at the end of the Southwark meeting is that he can see the need for reform, and he can see the need for wider consultation, but he can't see how to achieve the wider consultation.

 

I suspect he is aware that despite groundswell in favour of reform there are also some powerful voices behind the status quo, who could well throw in his face the fact that Tim's 'self appointed group of conspirators'* are unrepresentative and have no democratic mandate, unlike the Methods Committee.

 

And let's not delude ourselves.  Even Tim's group didn't reach consensus on some things so when it comes to detail there is still likely to be some strong argument.

 

Without a strong majority in the Committee, and without a clear external mandate, I am not surprised that Peter has been unable to move things forward, especially since AFIA he has a heavy workload.

 

The question of course, is what we should do about it.

 

* Yes , it is strong language.  I had worse than that thrown in my face in the bar in Hull for daring to interfere with the Decisions (not from a member of the Methods Committee).

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 7 ***

 

From: gra...@changeringing.co.uk [mailto:gra...@changeringing.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 11:24 AM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Thanks Dave,

 

It is very disappointing that the committee has not, as a minimum in these two months, reviewed the r-t sub-group document nor provided feedback to Tim, as that would have allowed the working group to make further improvements, and gauge whether the committee would subsequently be prepared to endorse it as the way forward. Although we may not have expected the process to be necessarily completed by next May, we were expecting that it would be close, with broad support following wide consultation, under a proposal that didn't require waiting a further year before ratification.     

 

Graham

 

 

 

*** 8 ***

 

From: David Richards [mailto:dad...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Cc: Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

 

On 9 December 2015 at 16:23, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

Thanks Dave,

 

It is very disappointing that the committee has not, as a minimum in these two months, reviewed the r-t sub-group document

 

Well ... the R-T sub-group document was reviewed by the methods committee in the run-up to the Southwark meeting. I'm not going to say that it was particularly thorough or comprehensive (or even representative of the average of the committee's views), however, I suspect that it was sufficient to get it 'ticked off the list' [at least for the time being].

 

My view is the same as John's - Peter would like to get a wider consultation going but doesn't necessarily know how to achieve it and there's no particular deadline.  I can see why it makes sense not to feed back initial thoughts on the RT rules subgroup paper if you are intending to fundamentally change the nature of the reviewing body at some later point - it seems unclear what status any interim feedback would have.

 

 

> ... under a proposal that didn't require waiting a further year before ratification.     

 

Yes - and with my cynic's hat on, even that seems unlikely at this stage. Presumably you are referring to the idea of giving the methods committee more autonomy (i.e. can make changes, followed by ratification) or possibly even divesting the entire responsibility to another body. If that were going to be proposed, we'd need wording ready for March. Given the slow pace of work [of which I admit I bear my part of responsibility], even agreeing a rule change to implement that in the next ~12 weeks seems unlikely (and you're correct that it stands a low chance of being adopted unless there's a reasonable view of what the committee would like to do in terms of a change).

 

 

So - what to do?

I'm going to circulate a note to the methods committee reminding them that there is an outstanding commitment for a roadmap for consultation and see what happens. Obviously that overlaps with John's request, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

Cheers,

Dave.

 

 

 

*** 9 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Smith [mailto:ric...@ex-parrot.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 1:16 PM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

David Richards wrote:

 

> I think it's fair to say that Peter is still unsure how to engage

> people who have not, so far, been particularly involved in the debate.

 

In that case, perhaps we need to come up with a strategy.

It is, after all, us that wants this to go ahead.

 

Richard

 

 

 

*** 10 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 4:34 PM
To: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Cc: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; rt-rules...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Agree we need to come up with a strategy.  I throw out the following for starters:

 

In response to Peter's uncertainty on how to engage others, I would say that first, the MC has already done quite a lot of outreach: they invited written responses to a questionnaire, and while this process was arguably flawed in content and inarguably flawed in timing, I don't think this stopped people saying what they wanted to say.  The MC also organized the open Southwark meeting. 

 

And second, while I think many ringers want to see improved decisions, as evidenced by the May '14 CC vote, I suspect very few actually want to be part of the detailed process to produce such an improvement.

 

I would therefore suggest to Peter that the ball should now be in the MC's court to produce a proposal based on input already received, and then a further round of consultation could occur based on that proposal.

 

I like the idea of the MC co-opting an additional person to focus on a decisions proposal.  An better idea might be for the MC to establish an advisory committee to develop a proposal.  The MC could appoint, say, 10-12 knowledgeable people, representing the spectrum of views on the decisions, who have sufficient interest and bandwidth to work on the detail.  Unlike the rt-subgroup, this group could vote on tricky areas such as simultaneous minor on 12, so that the resulting proposal can be shown to be a majority view.

 

Of course, which 10-12 are chosen could have a big impact on the proposal, but a further round of broader consultation on the proposal could guard against any bias.

 

So overall, a suggested strategy could be to:

 

(a) try to persuade Peter the ball should be in the MCs court now to take the next step.

 

(b) encourage Peter to co-opt additional people to delegate the development of a proposal to, which can then be subjected to a further round of exercise-wide consultation.

 

But there is a risk that despite our best efforts, we are not able to get the MC as a whole to move this forward.  There is then the question of whether there should be a part (c) to the strategy - to consider whether we should be seeking to have a decisions update proposed from the floor of the CC meeting, as the 2014 review proposal was.  This would be complicated to execute and no doubt cause much conflict, so I would only advocate (c) if every attempt had been made to work through the MC, but this had failed.

 

Tim

 

On Dec 9, 2015, at 13:16, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

David Richards wrote:

I think it's fair to say that Peter is still unsure how to engage people
who have not, so far, been particularly involved in the debate.

In that case, perhaps we need to come up with a strategy.
It is, after all, us that wants this to go ahead.

Richard

 

 

 

*** 11 ***

 

From: Don Morrison [mailto:d...@ringing.org]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:43 PM
To: David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Cc: Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:13 AM David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it's fair to say that Peter is still unsure how to engage

> people who have not, so far, been particularly involved in the

> debate.

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can possibly be an explanation, or even part of an explanation, for the current situation: the continued, deafening silence does nothing to help engage such people, nor to figure out how to engage such people.

 

- 

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

"We all have flaws," [the duke] said, "and mine is being

wicked."           -- James Thurber, _The Thirteen Clocks_

 

 

 

*** 12 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:jo...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:40 PM
To: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Cc: gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; tjbar...@gmail.com; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

RAS:

 

> perhaps we need to come up with a strategy. It is, after all, us that

> wants this to go ahead.

 

So far only Tim replied, so here are my thoughts.

 

Tim suggested:  (a) persuade Peter to take the ball & (b) encourage him to co-opt people who could develop a proposal.  I'm not sure that's really a strategy.  Peter already knows he has the ball, but he's not sure how to play it.  In fact he might not be too sure what exactly the ball is.

 

Co-opting someone might be a part of the solution, but I don't think it is 'the' solution.  If they coopt one person he/she may be in an uncomfortable minority position.  If they coopt several it may feel like a take over.

Cooption implies becoming a full member of the Committee, with shared responsibility for the rest of its work.  Is that what we want? 

 

I don't rule out cooption, and it might be the best way to achieve the real needs, but there are alternatives, for example set up an ad hoc external group and appoint someone to act as the formal link (which may involve attending meetings) as well as informal exchanges of course.

 

A key part of the strategy needs to be engagement, in particular with two

groups:

 

A - The wider body of informed technical opinion.  That is likely to mean members of R-T or a suitably selected subset (possibly but not necessarily those who formed Tim's working group).

 

B - The wider ringing community.  In practice only a fraction will engage but importantly they will include ringers whose views have substance even though they are not technical specialists.

 

A possible plan would be:

 

1 - Engage the wider community (A) through articles in the Ringing World and on the website and stimulate views through the letters column, the chat lists and via ringing societies.  This engagement needs to include:

 

- Explanation (for example the series of articles that I have written)

 

- A set of high level questions (such as the ones in my submission to the Southwark meeting, but obviously more)

 

2 - Digest the feedback and seek to establish a set of consensus principles.  This may require some trade off and would be an opportunity for contributions from (B)

 

3 - Feedback the consensus principles (A & B).  If necessary iterate again on unresolved points via 1 & 2.

 

4 - Develop a definitive new document based on the principles, drawing on input from (B).  (Several iterations inevitable.)

 

5 - Publish overview explaining what is proposed (referring back to

principles) with reference to new document on the web well ahead of CC meeting.

 

Timescale - I doubt anyone would believe 1-5 is possible before 2016 meeting.  (It could be, with a well oiled professional organisation, but we don't have one of those.)  However there is no excuse for not reaching (3) and starting (4) before the 2016 meeting.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 13 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 3:28 PM
To: John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:39 PM, John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Ø  I don't rule out cooption, and it might be the best way to achieve the real
needs, but there are alternatives, for example set up an ad hoc external
group and appoint someone to act as the formal link (which may involve
attending meetings) as well as informal exchanges of course.

I agree an ad hoc external group with a formal link to the MC could be the best approach.  This is what I had in mind when I referred to an advisory committee.

Ø  A key part of the strategy needs to be engagement, in particular with two
groups: [a wider body of informed technical opinion, and those in the wider ringing community who want to engage]

A possible plan would be:
1 - Engage the wider community ...
2 - Digest the feedback and seek to establish a set of consensus principles ...
3 - Feedback the consensus principles ... iterate on unresolved points ...
4 - Develop a definitive new document based on the principles ... iterate ...
5 - Publish overview explaining what is proposed (referring back to principles) ...

Seems reasonable, although I continue to think that establishing principles only gets you so far.  E.g. the principle of respecting ringing history might suggest peals of triples and below should be rung in whole extents, whereas the principle of consistency across stages would suggest a different result.  At some point I think you need a representative group to vote on quite a lot of specific points to find out where the majority view lies.  I would see this as being the ad hoc group's role.  I thought it was interesting that once we voted on specific points when we held the r-t polls, this seemed to generally bring an end to debate on those points.

 

(Btw I'm looking forward to reading your RW articles, John.)

 

Dave - any further update from the MC on next steps?  I don't know if it's fair to direct this to you specifically - Peter identified you as a liaison to the subgroup, although perhaps that was intended only to be in relation to the Southwark meeting (and I know this email isn't to the subgroup!)  It would be interesting to know whether Peter would consider setting up an external ad hoc group to do some of the heavy lifting and speed up progress.

 

Regards

Tim

 

 

 

*** 14 ***

 

From: Don Morrison [mailto:d...@ringing.org]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

I should probably just shut up and keep my head down, but I find myself unable to do so.

 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I continue to think that establishing principles only gets you so

> far. E.g. the principle of respecting ringing history might suggest

> peals of triples and below should be rung in whole extents, whereas

> the principle of consistency across stages would suggest a different

> result. At some point I think you need a representative group to

> vote on quite a lot of specific points

 

I'm sorry, but this really disturbs me. This sounds so like it's coming from a desire to regulate what ringers do. You seem to be starting from the premise that what we allow folks to do needs to be determined by balancing a respect for history against a desire for consistency. This is completely wrong.

 

We should *not* be regulating what ringers do. All we should be doing is performing a service for ringers, and recording whatever it is they've chosen to do. If we find ourselves balancing respect for history versus consistency across stages we're making the decisions for the ringers of what they should do, and not serving ringers by recording whatever it is they choose to do. The principle that needs to be established is describe, don't prescribe, and your example takes as a given that prescription is the way to go, and merely wants to establish principles on which to base that prescription.

 

That may not be what was intended, but it is what was written. If we really do mean to be descriptive rather than prescriptive we *must* banish words like "must", "shall" and "should" from what we write on the subject. And, yes, I do giggle at the irony of my own use of "must" in that sentence.

 

-- 

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

"Like all well-conceived classifications, this one is useful

and clear; like all classifications it is false."

  -- Fernando Pessoa, "Toward Explaining Heteronymy",

     tr Jonathan Griffin

 

 

 

*** 15 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 5:23 PM
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; li...@simpleigh.com; tjbar...@gmail.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

TJB:

> > establishing principles only gets you so far ... At some point I

> > think you need a representative group to vote on quite a lot of

> > specific points

 

DFM:

> This sounds so like it's coming from a desire to regulate what ringers

> do.

 

Given that we were discussing how to decide the content of whatever should replace the decisions it would be reasonable to assume that the 'specific points' related to that.

 

> You seem to be starting from the premise that what we allow folks to

> do needs to be determined by balancing a respect for history against a

> desire for consistency.

 

I merely read that as an example of one of the things on which ringers might want to form a consensus.

 

> ... we should be ... performing a service for ringers, and recording

> whatever it is they've chosen to do ... describe, don't prescribe ...

 

Yes, and to do that in an orderly way we all agree (implicitly since we are willing to expend effort on it) that we need some sort of descriptive framework / set of defined constructs / naming schema / conventions for who

does what.   > If we find ourselves balancing

 

> That may not be what was intended, but it is what was written.

 

I think it was a combination of what was written and a filter through which it was interpreted, which had the 'suspect conspiracy' coefficient wound up to maximum.

 

> ... we *must* banish words like "must" ...

 

Precisely - moderation in all things ;-)

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 16 ***

 

From: Don Morrison [mailto:d...@ringing.org]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 6:10 PM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; li...@simpleigh.com; tjbar...@gmail.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:26 PM John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> the 'suspect conspiracy' coefficient wound up to maximum.

 

Not "suspect conspiracy", rather "vigilant that we leave our old, bad habits of thought behind". When we use the same words as in the past, why would we believe our behaviour will be different this time?

 

-- 

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

"The duke had managed quite well for fifty years without

finding a use for curiosity. It was not a trait much

encouraged in aristocrats."  -- Terry Pratchett, _Wyrd Sisters_

 

 

 

*** 17 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 7:34 PM
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Cc: John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

This sounds so like it's coming from a desire to regulate what ringers do.

 

No.  It's coming from the position that it's desirable to have a distinction between standard and non-standard performances (in the parlance of the subgroup draft), for the reasons that were outlined in the companion document.  This position requires decisions on what will be included in the definition of a standard performance.  That's what my comments were referring to (perhaps I need to be more explicit).  The companion document also made clear that there was no intention to denigrate any type of performance that falls outside the definition of a standard performance - i.e. no desire to regulate.

 

I know, Don, or at least I believe, that you don't think there should be such a distinction in a future version of the Decisions.  In that context, the rest of your comments make sense.  But they don't in the context of keeping a distinction between standard and non-standard.  I know I keep coming back to voting, but at some point there'll need to be a determination of which views have majority support, and which are minority opinions.  Otherwise the same points will be rehashed over and over, as we are doing here(!)

 

 

 

*** 18 ***

 

From: Philip Earis [mailto:pj...@cantab.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 1:32 AM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Tim:

“I agree an ad hoc external group with a formal link to the MC could be the best approach.  This is what I had in mind when I referred to an advisory committee”

 

I share Tim’s desire to make some progress here. Ultimately, it’s been in large part due to his hard work that progress in developing alternatives has happened, and I hope he can continue to push things forward.

 

I have concerns at 2 related levels though:

 

1) Is it not overly naive to assume there’s any will in the CC / MC (at the corporate level) to actually engage here in good faith? Remember it was back in May 2014 (after decades of discussion) when a motion from the floor finally mandated the MC to fundamentally review decisions with high priority.  As I documented in my RW piece in March, the delays and obfuscation in response to this were striking. 

 

Since then the MC have been dragged kicking and screaming into holding a meeting, for which no minutes or official record has been published nearly 3 months on. One of the key agreed actions from the Southwark meeting – for the MC to consider the draft documents coordinated by Tim – has, as far as I am aware, just been ignored.   How long is needed?

 

If there is yet another attempt at formal engagement with the MC, at

the very least there needs from to outset to be a mutually agreed timeframe for different milestones.

 

 

2) There has been repeated talk about the need to “establish a set of consensus principles”. This depends a bit on one’s definition of consensus, but it’s not hard to see that consensus (as in almost 100% agreement) is impossible to achieve here.

 

If we take consensus as a prerequisite I fear any chance of progress is doomed...anyone with a vested interest in the status quo can easily spoil things by whipping up the holiday-camp bunch who attend and vote at CC meetings with scary rhetoric that big changes are afoot and if they don’t understand them it’s safest just to throw everything out.

 

I’ve seen this repeatedly at CC meetings, both in methods discussions and at a more general level (remember this year’s “big reform” was to change the date of the annual CC meeting in 3 year’s time, and this was voted down for being too radical).

 

I realise I am highlighting difficulties, not raising solutions.  But I think it is sensible to be pragmatic, and realistic about the motivations and inclinations of some of the people and bodies involved, rather than hoping for the best.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

 

 

*** 19 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:27 AM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>
Cc: dad...@gmail.com; ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; li...@simpleigh.com; d...@ringing.org
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

TJB:

 

> it's desirable to have a distinction between standard and non-standard

> performances (in the parlance of the subgroup draft), for the reasons

> that were outlined in the companion document.

 

Even with my sensitivity parameter much lower than Don's, that statement crosses it.

 

I have just re-read (in v6) what the companion document said about standard performances and the requirements for a standard performance and the definitions of performances. 

 

The words in the companion document I would put it in the unfinished category.  They start off well but the final paragraph raises doubts (We don't really have anything against goats, we just prefer to keep them in a

different pen from the sheep).   I can see why PDN (body language as well

as words, at Southwark) had difficulty seeing how it was anything other than a different label for compliance. 

 

The requirements for a standard performance (K) are a vast improvement on what we have now, in that they are about performance rather than arbitrary constraints on methods, etc.  But when coupled with the definition of performances (H) definitely looks like old-think - a peal isn't a peal unless it is a standard performance, etc.  And Q.1 says that standard and 'other' performances should be analysed separately.

 

So re-winding a bit on things that I have probably said before but certainly thought:

 

Defining a 'standard performance' draws a boundary that has some things inside and others outside.  However you do that you get the adverse effects we would like to avoid (unless the standard is so loose as to be meaningless).

 

I think we should start from a different perspective.  We should not start by drawing a boundary so we can count those inside and those outside separately.  We should assert that all performances have merit and that if we want to rank them by merit it should be on the basis of significant attributes, not on the basis of a binary criterion where all inside of an arbitrary boundary are assumed to be equal to each other and different by a significant quantum from all outside.  

 

As an example consider:

 

Is a silent, non-conducted, double handed peal of spliced surprise Maximus rung blindfold of the same intrinsic merit as a peal of 5040 Plain Bob Doubles?

 

Is a peal of 5040 Plain Bob Doubles of significantly greater intrinsic merit than a peal of 40,320 Major rung in relay by 9* ringers?

 

In order to ensure that all performances can if needed be judged on their merits it is necessary to have confidence that all significant attributes can be deduced from the performance report.  To avoid every report having to include a lot of repetitive detail we should define a set of performance reporting norms - attributes that are assumed unless stated otherwise.

Most of the items in K would become performance norms.

 

M.4 already requires performances that differ from K.n to say so, but it could be stated in less discriminatory language.

 

* - 9 ringers for Major is the minimum necessary to allow breaks for toilet/food/drink but still requires each ringer to be on the rope end for something like 16 hours.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 20 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:33 AM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

 

> Btw I'm looking forward to reading your RW articles, John

 

I confess I've been sitting on them hoping to launch them alongside the next MC move.  I sent a copy to Dave (as our link man) for comment.  I did invite expressions of interest from you folk a few weeks ago but no one asked.  Maybe all too shy ;-)

 

The current version is attached.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 21 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 7:01 AM
To: Philip Earis <pj...@cantab.net>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; tjbar...@gmail.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Philip

 

Firstly - compliments on a good article in the Christmas Ringing World.  It will be interesting to see whether there is a response.  (I saw someone on FB complaining that no one had commented, but not offering to do so.)

 

> ... any will in the CC / MC (at the corporate level) to actually

> engage here in good faith?

 

I suspect there is quite a bit of willing spirit / weak flesh.

 

> 2) There has been repeated talk about the need to "establish a set of

> consensus principles". This depends a bit on one's definition of

> consensus, but it's not hard to see that consensus (as in almost 100%

> agreement) is impossible to achieve here.

 

Consensus does not mean 100% agreement.  OED defines it as a 'general agreement'.  In practical terms I would say we are looking for a majority view that the solution was the best compromise, that most ringers will accept.

 

> If we take consensus as a prerequisite I fear any chance of progress

> is doomed ...

 

In the above sense?

 

> ...anyone with a vested interest in the status quo can easily spoil

> things by whipping up the holiday-camp bunch who attend and vote at CC

> meetings with scary rhetoric that big changes are afoot and if they

> don't understand them it's safest just to throw everything out.

 

That works when the mass of members are not well informed, which is why I believe the information campaign to explain the issues to grass roots ringers (and grass roots CC members) is as important as the technical work done in small groups.

 

> this year's "big reform" was to change the date of the annual CC

> meeting in 3 year's time, and this was voted down for being too radical).

 

It was voted down because the proposal was half baked without an adequate rationale.  The idea of changing the date followed from considering a lot of practical things like the availability of facilities at reasonable rates (I forget the detail), but none of that was presented, and none of the other practical issues (thrown in from the floor, some of them irrational) seemed to have been considered either.

 

> I think it is sensible to be pragmatic, and realistic about the

> motivations and inclinations of some of the people and bodies

> involved, rather than hoping for the best.

 

Agreed.  We know there are some who favour the status quo (including some

heavyweights) and we know there are a lot of other distractions for those in positions of influence.  However, I believe the Council has more level headed, open minded members than it did when I joined it.  (They also seem to be younger, but maybe that's just because I have got older :-(

 

It won't be easy, but let's not give up.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 22 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 10:39 AM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:32 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

I did invite expressions of interest from you folk a few weeks ago but no one asked.  Maybe all too shy ;-)

 

I didn't offer to comment previously as I thought you might be fed up of hearing my views!  But thanks for sending - I enjoyed reading these and you've clearly done your research.  These articles will be helpful in bringing more ringers up to speed on the history and content of the Decisions, and the reasons for the controversies and need for an update.  I agree with your point that an information campaign to explain the issues to grass roots ringers (and grass roots CC members) is as important as the technical work done in small groups.  I have a few comments on the articles, all very minor, that I'll send you offline.

 

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 6:26 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Even with my sensitivity parameter much lower than Don's, that statement
crosses it ... I think we should start from a different perspective.  We should not start
by drawing a boundary so we can count those inside and those outside
separately.  We should assert that all performances have merit and that if
we want to rank them by merit it should be on the basis of significant
attributes, not on the basis of a binary criterion where all inside of an
arbitrary boundary are assumed to be equal to each other and different by a
significant quantum from all outside.

 

Ok, it sounds as though we should discuss the standard / non-standard delineation question further.  I would have two questions / concerns on the above:

 

The first is that it seems to me that ringing a peal has always been about accepting and trying to meet a defined challenge.  The challenge could be increased, for example by ringing the peal silent and non-conducted, by ringing harder methods, or by ringing a long length, but the challenge always involved meeting a set of minimum requirements.  If we move to a model where there is no longer a defined challenge, that everything can be a peal with the right disclosure, this would seem to significantly alter the status quo.  For example, a band could fire out a peal attempt, restart from the previous lead end and continue to the end, and then still publish as a peal (because all performances have merit) with the restart disclosed in the footnote.  This seems to me to be into the realm of regime change, which I think goes beyond what is needed in a Decisions update.  (I view sometimes failing to meet the challenge (i.e. losing a peal) to be an important component of ringing - it makes the successful peals that much more of an accomplishment, giving the band a stronger sense of achievement.)

 

The second is on how the above would be implemented.  You say, "To avoid every report having to include a lot of repetitive detail we should define a set of performance reporting norms - attributes that are assumed unless stated otherwise.  Most of the items in K would become performance norms."  But just by writing down what is considered a norm (i.e. normal), aren't you effectively denoting what is a sheep and what is a goat?  Even if you say sheep and goats can both be called peals, won't the people who don't want sheep and goats to be delineated still have a problem with some peals being considered 'not normal'?

 

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:00 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

It won't be easy, but let's not give up.

 

Agreed.  I think we can get there eventually!

 

 

 

*** 23 ***

 

 

From: Don Morrison [mailto:d...@ringing.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 11:06 AM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 10:38 AM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The first is that it seems to me that ringing a peal has always been

> about accepting and trying to meet a defined challenge.

 

Perhaps I'm reading more into this than I should, but it appears to be implicit in this that that's "defined by someone else". I, instead, think ringers ring what they choose, and set their own challenges. The "someone else's" job is simply to record what they have chosen to do. More a cooperative endeavor, like music*, and less a competitive one, like sport.

 

 

* And yes, I know, music often has a tawdry, highly competitive underbelly forced upon it by unfortunate economic realities.

 

-- 

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

"Mixed metaphor is perfectly logical, and not an aberration at all.

After all, metaphor is already a mixing of disparate agents...and so

mixed metaphor can be said to be the essence, the hypostasis, of

metaphor."             -- James Wood, _How Fiction Works_

 

 

 

*** 24 ***

 

From: Leigh Simpson [mailto:li...@simpleigh.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 11:29 AM
To: 'Tim Barnes' <tjbar...@gmail.com>; 'John Harrison' <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: 'Richard Smith' <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; 'Graham John' <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; 'Iain Anderson' <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; 'Philip Earis' <ea...@cantab.net>; 'Don Morrison' <d...@ringing.org>; 'David Richards' <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Decisions decisions

 

Happy New Year!

 

The second is on how the above would be implemented.  You say, "To avoid every report having to include a lot of repetitive detail we should define a set of performance reporting norms - attributes that are assumed unless stated otherwise.  Most of the items in K would become performance norms."  But just by writing down what is considered a norm (i.e. normal), aren't you effectively denoting what is a sheep and what is a goat?  Even if you say sheep and goats can both be called peals, won't the people who don't want sheep and goats to be delineated still have a problem with some peals being considered 'not normal'?

 

Annoying as it may be, I’m starting to think we’ll probably need to retain this part of the decisions (at least in the short term). Any motion at the CC meeting will inevitably get stuck into details like “will this allow peals on simulators,” “will this allow peals to not end in rounds,” and other such questions. Each of these questions that are answered “yes” will lose a few votes for the motion from the ringers who are prejudiced against peals on simulators, etc.

 

In my view it might be easier to push a phased approach. Step one might be separating methods from peals (as has been advocated by many for a long time). Our existing “cultural norms” (like starting/ending in rounds) are retained as rules for peals. The term “cultural” is illustrative – each change to these needs a culture shift in the ringing community. The big step forward is that method classification “guidelines” can be maintained by the methods committee without needing input from the council (although obviously the council reserves the right to “call in” decisions if they feel the need). New method constructions are automatically allowed if the rules for peals are otherwise met, and it’s the committee’s job to produce a meaningful classification. It might be worth thinking about the escalation path here if the committee isn’t doing its job properly (e.g. an external advisory committee for arbitration).

 

This would be a pretty fundamental shift, but shouldn’t have much effect on the average CC member. It’s not going to open the floodgates to stuff they don’t like. It flatters them by making them feel like the guardians of our culture. It reflects the “description not prescription” mantra which is actually pretty popular now. It lets them stop worrying about pointless method construction details they don’t understand.

 

This will be a pretty important improvement, and after it’s made it’ll be easier to attack individual “cultural norms” or make changes to force the Peal Records lot to start recording peals that don’t meet our norms. The MC won’t be directly affected by future changes and so won’t delay things (accidentally or on purpose). We can even prepare the way by wording the proposed changes sensitively.

 

Personally I’d rather take a series of small steps rather than prepare an enormous change that’s rejected because it annoys everybody in the room by affecting their particular “soapbox issue”. On the other hand I appreciate this might not be radical enough. What do others think?

 

Best wishes,

 

Leigh

 

 

 

*** 25 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; d...@ringing.org; dad...@gmail.com; tjbar...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Leigh:

 

> In my view it might be easier to push a phased approach.

 

That suggestion needs discussing.  There is much to be said for making major change in small careful stages rather than a big bang.  But there are also risks.  One is that it can take a lot more effort over a very long time.  Another is that people give up after a while so you end up with a slightly less bad solution rather than fixing things properly.  The third is that you can end up with a heavily patched version of what you had before rather than what you wanted.  That's how we got where we are.  In modern times the Council and the Methods Committee have rolled back a lot of the original paternalistic restrictions but the old ideology underneath still seeps through all the patches.

 

In fact I have all along proposed a two stage process with the first stage (which I felt should be led by a CC working group, not by the Methods

Committee) to agree principles for the reform, with wide involvement and a Council vote, followed by an implementation phase (which would be run by the Methods Committee with external technical input).  If the first phase was done properly and produced a clear brief then the implementation phase should be much less problematic.  There might need to be a review and follow up a year or so later to sort out any bedding down issues.

 

Regards

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 26 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 1:10 PM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Tim:

 

> ringing a peal has always been about accepting and trying to meet a

> defined challenge.

 

Agreed (though the challenge is somewhat reduced for those who churn them out on a regular basis.  The question is: what is a peal? 

 

I suggest that it is essentially a length (H.4 with 'standard' deleted). 

The fact that people can argue about 'peals rung on simulators' or 'peals that aren't audible outside the tower', 'peals not rung in whole extents', or whatever makes it clear that people don't think of those other attributes as defining 'what a peal is' but as 'rules about which peals are allowed'. 

 

So let's define a peal as a peal and then debate what should or should not limit the sort of peals that are rung, reported and recorded/analysed.

 

> The challenge could be increased, ... but ...  always involved meeting a

> set of minimum requirements.  

 

This sounds authoritarian.  Ringing a peal (length) is well defined, but how much of a challenge any particular peal is depends on the context. 

 

> If we move to a model where there is no longer a defined challenge ...

 

You can't define the challenge absolutely.   for a seasoned peal ringer to

knock off yet another peal of Pitstow's Yorkshire is probably far less challenging than some situations that might fail to meet one of your 'minimum requirements'. 

 

> ... everything can be a peal with the right disclosure,

 

No.  Some things won't be a peal, for example 3000 Bob Doubles or The Messiah on handbells.

 

> this would seem to significantly alter the status quo.

 

I thought we were trying to change the status quo!  I agree we need to respect history and provide continuity, but I don't see that as impossible.

 

> a band could fire out a peal attempt, restart from the previous lead

> end and continue to the end, and then still publish as a peal

 

Not if 'peal' is defined as a continuous performance of 5000+.

 

> This seems to me to be into the realm of regime change

 

I thought we wanted to change the regime from current (you have to report things as dictated by the pre-existing Decisions and or be branded

non-compliant) to a more liberal one (report what you have done and if it goes beyond the pre-existing Decisions the Methods Committee will try to bring them into line to encompass it).

 

> You say, "To avoid every report having to include a lot of repetitive

> detail we should define a set of performance reporting norms -

> attributes that are assumed unless stated otherwise.  Most of the

> items in K would become performance norms."

 

We already have a set of defaults that are assume without being stated in the report.  The difference is that currently you are only allowed to report deviations in one direction, with any deviation in the other direction, however small, being deemed unacceptable.

 

>  But just by writing down what is considered a norm (i.e. normal),

> aren't you effectively denoting what is a sheep and what is a goat?

 

Call it a default if you like.  For example, when you read a composition (human readable) you assume 4th place bobs unless it says otherwise.  That doesn't mean peals with 6th place bobs are goats that should be counted separately, it just saves having to write it down explicitly in 99.9% of compositions. 

 

> Even if you say sheep and goats can both be called peals, won't the

> people who don't want sheep and goats to be delineated still have a

> problem with some peals being considered 'not normal'?

 

They won't both be 'called peals' they will 'be peals'.  Anyone who disapproves of goats (or donkeys or zebra or peals on fewer than 7 bells, or odd bell methods, or singles in Surprise, or peals not rung for a service, or whatever) can read the detail and decide whether or not to turn up his or her nose, but the CC won't hang a 'beware of smell' label on it.

 

Apologies for waxing lyrical.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 27 ***

 

From: Philip Earis [mailto:pj...@cantab.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 5:34 AM
To: Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; 'Tim Barnes' <tjbar...@gmail.com>; 'John Harrison' <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: 'Richard Smith' <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; 'Graham John' <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; 'Iain Anderson' <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; 'Don Morrison' <d...@ringing.org>; 'David Richards' <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

There are many interesting points in recent emails.  Personally I’d be happier if they appeared on the google subgroup (or ringing-theory), rather than in a private small-circulation.

 

I broadly agree with Tim’s recent substantive points, whilst also finding agreement (as well as some pointed differences) with much of what Leigh and John have said.

 

I do think there’s sufficient common ground here to build around. But the process is not easy.

 

Turning just (for now) to Leigh’s email, I fully recognise only too well his scenario of a wholesale package being put to the Council being voted down by a succession of different groups who object to small parts.  It’s hard to explain to those who haven’t had the joy of attending full Council meetings how painfully status-quo and change resistant they are.

 

[Indeed, I’ve even seen the spectacle, both delicious and maddening, of long-standing members arguing against something (ability to name a doubles method by ringing a 120) they thought was a new change being proposed, only to turn round 180 degrees argue for it when it was pointed out to them it was already in the existing Decisions]

 

That said, the thrust of Leigh’s roadmap doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence. To give some examples (please liberally apply smiley faces etc to my comments – they may be blunt but are not intended to be rude):

 

1) “In my view it might be easier to push a phased approach” – so we have an area in which there have been many attempts to change the status quo over literally decades, only to be met by dogged stalling.  When finally in May 2014 the Methods Committee was mandated to do something, the result was even more heel-digging-in.  Finally we’ve had a meeting – now 3 months ago – for which no official minutes have been produced and seemingly none of the actions have even begun to be addressed.  So please forgive my scepticism when the proposed answer is that there should be more of a “phased approach”...

 

2) “Step one might be separating methods from peals (as has been advocated by many for a long time” – this might be something PABS has mentioned various times, but I’m sceptical it’s a panacea or even an improvement.  The devil is in the detail, but you risk ending up with a Committee that decides that A is a method (and by association wholesome / approved / legitimised / worthwhile etc), whereas B can happily be disregarded as a “non method block” (sound familiar?) or some such according to the whims / prejudices of the committee. 

 

3) “The big step forward is that method classification “guidelines” can be maintained by the methods committee without needing input from the council” – hmm, big step forward?  This might superficially sound attractive if the MC had shown itself to be keen on (or even amenable to) reform and yet was constrained by the Council: sadly though this is far from reality.  You can’t disregard the clear evidence (over decades, including recently).  Every new or “non-compliant” development (be it link methods, dixonoids, “invalid” extensions, quark blocks or whatever) has met principal fierce resistance from the MC itself, not the wider Council. The MC has been unwilling to modify the Decisions, and just advises the Council that no change is needed.  The Council, having appointed their “technical experts” to the MC because the average Joe doesn’t understand or care, simply accepts the advice of the MC.

 

4) “It might be worth thinking about the escalation path here if the committee isn’t doing its job properly (e.g. an external advisory committee for arbitration)” – I’ll take a lot of convincing that the way to simpler, more efficient decision-making and accountability is though the CC launching another overlapping committee!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

 

*** 28 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Smith [mailto:ric...@ex-parrot.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 6:41 AM
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Cc: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Don Morrison wrote:

 

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I continue to think that establishing principles only gets you so

>> far. E.g. the principle of respecting ringing history might suggest

>> peals of triples and below should be rung in whole extents, whereas

>> the principle of consistency across stages would suggest a different

>> result. At some point I think you need a representative group to vote

>> on quite a lot of specific points

> 

> I'm sorry, but this really disturbs me. This sounds so like it's

> coming from a desire to regulate what ringers do. You seem to be

> starting from the premise that what we allow folks to do needs to be

> determined by balancing a respect for history against a desire for

> consistency. This is completely wrong.

 

I have to say, I share Don's concern about this.

 

In the specific example Tim gave, the solution seems obvious to me when approached from a descriptive point of view.  I would adopt "definitions" along the following lines:

 

* Historically the term 'peal' has several meanings.

Originally it meant any piece of change ringing, but with time it came to mean a piece of change ringing exceeding some minimum length, and that conformed to a number of other criteria regarding its construction, truth and the standard of the performance.  The precise choice of additional criteria has long been controversial.  The official criteria recognised by the Central Council were repeatedly changed, and were sometimes ignored.  It is now accepted that no single definition will satisfy everyone, therefore:

 

* A /peal/ is defined as a true, peal-length performance rung to a high standard satisfying such additional criteria as the band ringing it wish to impose.

 

* A /peal-length performance/ is any piece of change ringing whose length exceeds 5,000 rows.  It is recognised that not all ringers will wish to consider performances of triples of less than 5,040 row as peals: they are free to not do so.

As published peal reports must include their length and stage, those not interested in such performances can readily identify and ignore them.

 

* The analysis shall include both the total number of peals by stage, and separate figures for peals whose length was or was not a whole number of extents.

 

Richard

 

 

 

*** 29 ***

 

From: Don Morrison [mailto:d...@ringing.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 7:49 AM
To: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Cc: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <jo...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

> A /peal-length performance/ is any piece of change ringing whose

> length exceeds 5,000 rows. It is recognised that not all ringers

> will wish to consider performances of triples of less than 5,040 row

> as peals:

 

While not germane to your basic argument, I think something is not right here. While I would define a peal-length performance as 5,000 or more rows, I can see someone of a change-ist + start-and-end-in-rounds-ist persuasion (e.g. MBD) as defining it as more then 5,000 rows. But then the 5,040 row thing isn't right. Did you mean (I hope!) "at least 5,000 rows" or something equivalent, for peal-length performance?

 

In any case, modulo such details, I agree entirely with what you've said (which, I guess, isn't surprising, given the first line of your reply :-).

 

-- 

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

"If he wasn't a son-of-a-bitch yet, he had shown some very convincing

talent in that line."     -- Robert Penn Warren, _All the King's Men_

 

 

 

*** 30 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2016 9:31 PM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Philip Earis <pj...@cantab.net> wrote:

> There are many interesting points in recent emails.  Personally I’d be happier if they appeared on the google subgroup (or ringing-theory), rather than in a private small-circulation.

I would as well, not least so it will be easier to find these points in the future if needed.  If there are no objections, I'll find a suitable way to post this thread to the subgroup.


On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com> wrote:
> In my view it might be easier to push a phased approach ... Any motion at the CC meeting will inevitably get stuck into details like “will this allow peals on simulators,” “will this allow peals to not end in rounds,” and other such questions. Each of these questions that are answered “yes” will lose a few votes for the motion from the ringers who are prejudiced against peals on simulators, etc. 

While I understand JAH and PJE's reservations on this, I wonder if Leigh's approach may end up being the only pragmatic way of effecting change.  An unknown is whether some recent events will change anything at the CC such that the next 3 years won't be like the last 30:  Leigh and Dave represent a new generation of MC members, Peter seems to be a little more open to change than his predecessor, and a motion from the floor for a review of the Decisions passed despite Tony speaking against it.  The CC also seems to have received more public and strong criticism in 2015 than in any recent year that I recall, including the 6-page critical article in this week's RW on the ringing as sport / linkage to the church question.  I'm not close enough to the CC to be able to predict what sort of impact all this might have, but it would seem surprising if it had none at all.  Maybe that's naively optimistic..

Btw, when John Couperthwaite's motion passed in May 2014, what was the voting like?  Was it a close result such as 53 / 47, or much more decisive such as 65 / 35?

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:09 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> Not if 'peal' is defined as a continuous performance of 5000+.

Ok, so with JAH, RAS and DFM all expressing concerns with the way standard performance is used in the draft, we should revisit this!

If I'm following, the suggestion is that as a starting point, a peal would be defined in very broad terms: JAH and RAS both said 5000+ changes, JAH added that it would be a continuous performance (K.2 in the draft), and RAS added that it would be true (but not necessarily a round block - part of K.1), and rung to a high standard (similar to K.9).

JAH is then suggesting, I think, that the other items in Section K of the draft (or a similar set) would effectively be moved to Section P (Performance Reporting) and would be disclosed if they were not followed.  

I know I'm expressing this in the format of the current draft, and other changes might be wanted such as not using the term 'standard performance' at all, but is the above broadly what is being suggested?

Incidentally, what would happen to Section L (record lengths) under this proposal?

Tim

 

 

 

*** 31 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 4:37 AM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>
Cc: ric...@ex-parrot.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

PJE:

> >  I'd be happier if they appeared on the google subgroup (or 

> > ringing-theory), rather than in a private small-circulation.

 

TJB:

> I would as well ...  If there are no objections, I'll find a suitable

> way to post this thread to the subgroup.

 

My recollection is that it it didn't start as a technical discussion (which would be better accessible as an archive) but with some questions and pointed comments (addressed to a small known group of people, rather than made as public pronouncements). 

 

I agree that the technical discussion into which it evolved would be useful to make available but it might be worth looking at the early messages before doing so.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 32 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 8:39 AM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ea...@cantab.net; d...@ringing.org; li...@simpleigh.com; dad...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

Ok, makes sense.  I will find a suitable entry point for posting this thread to the subgroup.  Don't let that stop the discussion in the meantime!

Tim

On Jan 4, 2016, at 04:38, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

PJE:

  I'd be happier if they appeared on the google subgroup (or
  ringing-theory), rather than in a private small-circulation.

TJB:

I would as well ...  If there are no objections, I'll find a suitable
way to post this thread to the subgroup.

My recollection is that it it didn't start as a technical discussion (which
would be better accessible as an archive) but with some questions and
pointed comments (addressed to a small known group of people, rather than
made as public pronouncements). 

I agree that the technical discussion into

which it evolved would be useful
to make available but it might be worth looking at the early messages
before doing so.

 

 

 

*** 33 ***

 

From: Tim Barnes [mailto:tjbar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:05 PM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

All -- Firstly, sorry for the lack of follow-through since early Jan -- too many other things going on.  But I will be freeing up at the start of April, so plan to pick this back up then.

 

I haven't heard of any progress on the review by the MC in recent months, so am assuming there has been none.  Has anyone heard any differently?

 

As we get into CC meeting season, it seems worth having a 6-7 week push to see if we can reach any agreement on the remaining open points from v6.6.  Having a more complete proposal ready before the meeting may be useful in highlighting inaction by the MC (assuming that's the case), and setting things up to start a coordinated campaign for action at the 2017 meeting.

 

I think there were 2 main open points when we left off, as below.  I also said I would copy the appropriate parts of the  discussion among this group to the rt-rules-subgroup list so we could continue from there, ensuring the discussion is properly archived.

 

1. Broaden the definition of a peal (and other lengths) so that many of the 'standard performance' requirements in Section K would effectively move to Section P (Performance Reporting) where they would be disclosed if they were not followed - the 'norms' approach.

 

2.  Try and build in handling for layered method ringing, such as a 12-bell performance rung using two Minor methods.

 

I'll work on these and aim to get a revised draft out to the rules subgroup list in early April.

 

Tim

 

 

 

*** 34 ***

 

From: dfmor...@gmail.com [mailto:dfmor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrison
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't heard of any progress on the review by the MC in recent

> months, so am assuming there has been none. Has anyone heard any

> differently?

 

If I'm not mistaken the CCCBR Administrative Committee should have met a few days ago. Any relevant news from there?

 

-- 

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_

 

 

 

*** 35 ***

 

From: dfmor...@gmail.com [mailto:dfmor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrison
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:57 PM
To: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; LeighS <li...@simpleigh.com>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Philip Earis <pj...@cantab.net>

> > wrote: There are many interesting points in recent emails.

> > Personally I’d be happier if they appeared on the google subgroup

> > (or ringing-theory), rather than in a private small-circulation.

> 

> I would as well, not least so it will be easier to find these points

> in the future if needed. If there are no objections, I'll find a

> suitable way to post this thread to the subgroup.

 

I note we seem to have drifted back to the smaller, private email "group". I, of course, am as guilty as anyone, having sent both my previous, and this, reply to this smaller distribution list.

 

Or were there objections in the end?

 

-- 

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

"Unsheathe your dagger definitions."  -- James Joyce, _Ulysses_

 

 

 

*** 36 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:18 AM
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Cc: tjbar...@gmail.com; dad...@gmail.com; ea...@cantab.net; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ric...@ex-parrot.com; li...@simpleigh.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Don

 

> the CCCBR Administrative Committee should have met a few days ago. Any

> relevant news from there?

 

It wasn't an agenda item - it came up under matters arising from the minutes - or it would have done, except peter arrived late (in fairness there were lots of rail & tube closures, which made travel difficult).  It was said that he had promised a paper to go out with the agenda but none had been received.

 

When Peter did arrive he projected a summary so far with lists of suggested changes that had emerged from previous discussion.  He presented the lists with a slide for each topic (methods, performances, ...) and ion each one grouped them into what he called non-contentious and contentious.

Generally there were fewer of the former.  (My memory tells me that there was a third category, but if there was I can't remember what it was.)

 

He said the points were the ones he had presented a Southwark - but having only just seen them - on separate slides I have no way of confirming that.

Nor do I remember whether his version of the issues presented at Southwark mapped onto what we had been discussing in the group.  I asked for the paper to study in more depth and he said it was on the Methods Committee website.  I looked for it a couple of days later but couldn't find it.  I sent Peter an e-mail asking for a pointer to it but have not yet had a reply.

 

Peter presented three options for moving forward:

 

- Propose nothing at the Council meeting.

 

- Propose changes to the Decisions to implement the non-contentious points and seek an enabling motion to go away and develop the contentious points.

 

- Propose a motion to implement everything this year.

 

The first was considered not acceptable after two years and the third was considered impossible to do properly so we approved the second.  However, what I don't think we agreed was:

 

- Who would decided the split between contentious and non contentious

 

- The terms of an enabling motion

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

 

 

 

*** 37 ***

 

From: dfmor...@gmail.com [mailto:dfmor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrison
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:36 AM
To: John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
Cc: Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com>; David Richards <dad...@gmail.com>; Philip Earis <ea...@cantab.net>; Iain Anderson <iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk>; Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com>; Leigh Simpson <li...@simpleigh.com>; Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:17 AM, John Harrison

> <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote: When Peter did arrive he

> projected a summary so far with lists of suggested changes that had

> emerged from previous discussion. He presented the lists with a

> slide for each topic (methods, performances, ...) and ion each one

> grouped them into what he called non-contentious and contentious.

 

Was it essentially summary of the responses reported in this?

 

http://www.cccbr.org.uk/methods/mc-consultation-apr-2015-responses.pdf

 

Or something else?

 

-- 

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

"He laughed at the high degree of Master and Doctor with which

such studies were crowned, and marveled how a ceremony could

make a pundit out of a fool."       -- Will Durant, _The Renaissance_

 

 

 

*** 38 ***

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Harrison [mailto:deci...@jaharrison.me.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Cc: tjbar...@gmail.com; dad...@gmail.com; ea...@cantab.net; iain.a...@talentinnovations.co.uk; ric...@ex-parrot.com; li...@simpleigh.com; gra...@changeringing.co.uk
Subject: Re: Decisions decisions

 

Don

 

> Was it essentially summary of the responses reported in this?

 

> http://www.cccbr.org.uk/methods/mc-consultation-apr-2015-responses.pdf

 

> Or something else?

 

Something else, but he implied that the items that he had grouped as contentious / non-contentious under the various headings were obtained from the bulletted items in section 2 of that document.

 

--

John Harrison

Website http://jaharrison.me.uk