Fwd: Today's explanatory document

[Don Morrison]

And, finally, as promised, here is my re-reply to both of Peter's replies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Date: Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Today's explanatory document
To: Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com>
Cc: CCCBR Methods Committee <met...@cccbr.org.uk>, David Richards <cccbr-...@norfolk-st.co.uk>, Leigh Simpson <le...@simpleigh.com>, Fred Bone <fred...@dial.pipex.com>, Robin Woolley <ro...@robinw.org.uk>, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>

Many thanks for the prompt reply.​​

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Your main concerns about the proposed changes in Motion (G) seem to

> be that they could go further than they do. That's a valid view, and

> that's why we have Motion (H). What we are trying to do in (G) is

> get some things underway that (we hope) aren't too controversial and

> so have a good chance of getting agreed, and then we can get more

> done next year, once the principles of what we are trying to do have

> been accepted

While I may not agree with that choice, it is not unreasonable. For example, I would much rather any such incremental progress be made primarily by shortening the existing decisions, not by further lengthening them. But I do appreciate you explaining your rationale and, as I said, it makes sense, even if I don't agree with it.

> Change 3 (1250 vs 1260). We don't currently have any definitions for

> Quarter Peals (I recall you saying that we've managed perfectly well

> without them), so we have some people who think that a quarter of

> Triples should be at least 1260, and others who think that 1250 is

> enough. They get on happily side by side. What we want to do here is

> to make an objective statement about what you need to do to name a

> method, without having to get into the business of defining a

> Quarter Peal. I realise you could point out that by my logic 1250 is

> ok, since I just said it's decoupled from the (non-existent)

> definition of a Quarter Peal, but the rationale for choosing 1260 is

> that it should be acceptable to people who hold both views (it's

> only 10 additional changes after all).

I am very pleased that you did not define quarter peal, or even use the words. I do think that is the right choice. While what you have proposed adds only ten rows, it does, if I remember correctly, add quite a few words, and seems rather convoluted, however. :-)

> You have a valid point about publicising this work better. We set a

> timeline in (H) which should give plenty of time for review and

> comment, but you would like to see what's happening (or not

> happening) before then. This is perfectly reasonable. I would

> suggest using the CC website for this.

The web site seems a fine place for this. I look forward to seeing it updated soon; I believe the committee's page has not been touched in over six months.

> I am sure that you and Graham won't be shy in saying what you think

Where would you ever get that idea? :-)

BTW, Graham is now on the Council. I do hope you encourage him to join your committee.

> but I'm still worried about how we get more viewpoints represented.

I believe a good first step towards solving that problem is to ask of folks views, loudly and frequently. Send mail to various mailing lists asking for them. Post things on Facebook doing the same. Have suitable notices printed in the RW (I'm confidennt Robert will be willing, within reason). Post things on Bellboard and the CCCBR web site soliciting views. This needn't all fall on your shoulders, simply delegate the task to some interested party, on or off the committee. Don't do this just once, rather send and post reminders every few weeks; never allow any more than a month to pass between such reminders. It's remarkable how much more you can get out of folks if you just nag them enough.

> Anyway I hope you agree that we are trying to move things along in

> the direction that you would like, and we aren't trying to be

> deliberately difficult or obtuse.

I do so agree, and have tried to make that clear. I hope that message also came through in the letter I wrote to the RW a few weeks ago. As I think I've written more than once, this is the most positive stuff I've seen come out of the committee, ever. I've also written to the CC Reps of my local Guild and of the SRCY expressing my view that this is all trending in the right direction, and encouraging them to vote for all your proposals on Monday.

Re my observation

> While on the subject of calls, it is absurd that, while it is

> perfectly legal to use ordinary 58 half-lead bobs with this surprise

> major method

> 34x3.6x56x3x34x23.56x34.1,8

> we are forbidden from using half-lead calls with this, nearly

> identical method

> 34x3.6x56x3x34x3x256.34.1,8

you replied

> Maybe it's a bit late at night, but they both look "perfectly legal"

> to me. What am I missing?

Oh, my, I hope you'll forgive me for gigglingly observing that if even the Methods Committee chairman sees no problem here, perhaps there shouldn't be one? :-)

Here's a bit more on these two methods:

http://ringing.org/puzzle.html

Perhaps you will join me and agree that the Council made a mistake two year's ago in saying you can't use anything but lead end calls, and only of length one, and not changing the length of the lead, in some such methods? And, for similar, minor and doubles methods, you can't even name them by ringing an extent, instead being required include them in a peal. Can we perhaps agree to rescind the relegation to "non-method" status for some methods simply because they have the property that if you ring too many consecutive plain leads of them it eventually runs false? Especially since for just a slightly larger value of N that's true of all methods.

:-)

Anyway, thanks again. I hope for the sake of you and everyone else attending that Monday's meeting doesn't end up as long as it appears it is likely to.

-- 

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

"The most remarkable thing we do with language is learn it

in the first place."   -- Steven Pinker, _The Stuff of Thought_

[ma...@bronze-age.com]

I've just met up with Peter in the bar tonight. I think his heart is
in the right place! He is supportive of my membership of the MC, so
I'm hoping I'll get elected to it on Monday.

Change is however difficult. I shall be needing a lot of help from you
guys if we are to move the wheels faster than is being managed at the
moment.

MBD