Version 7.0

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Attached is v7.0 that attempts to incorporate 1 and 2 above, together with a few other smaller changes.  I've included both clean and redline versions (the redline is to v6.6, which is the version that was submitted to the MC last October).

I'd be interested to hear whether people think this latest version is a step forward or a step backward, and why (and any other comments, of course).

Regards

Tim

[Derek Williams]

Hi Tim,

You suggest 

I.41 Performance The ringing of a Block:  1. That is intended to be heard by the public, and/or for which details are to be published to the ringing community;  

I thought we had got rid of the 'heard by the public' requirement. Re-introducing it is a retrograde step. Why not just  I.41 Performance The ringing of a Block:  1.  for which details are intended to be published to the ringing community; ?

Otherwise I like the intent of what you have done.

Could I also raise the possibility of allowing what I would call 'method extents' to be used in peals and quarters and for method naming. I am thinking particularly of alliance and little minor methods that do not give true extents and therefore have to be spliced under the current rules. It seems an un-necessary imposition for these methods.

Cheers,

Derek

[John David]

Hi Tim

One or two possibly pernickity comments!

I can find no definition of cross-section for the surprise etc definitions. This is a term which I can remember puzzling over about 50 years ago when I first discovered the Central Council definitions (and thought even then that many of the points were either over prescriptive or just illogical!) 

(My preference would have been be to define Surprise as "no external places at any cross-section", but it is a bit late for that now!)

As I think I have said before, if place is defined by referring to position in a row, why not use position, and thus simplify by using Place (or place-making) to refer only to repeated blows in the same position (which I think is how most practical ringers think of them) (I appreciate that there would still be confusion among those who talk about place bells when referring to starts).

John

---

Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:25:26 -0400
Subject: [rt-rules-subgroup] Version 7.0
From: tjbar...@gmail.com
To: rt-rules...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rt-rules-subgroup" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rt-rules-subgr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rt-rules...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rt-rules-subgroup.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rt-rules-subgroup/CA%2B16xEd02YTjR-AEqo2PCnynAqKqwvCEi%3DgcOhfff-UPDj8%3Dgw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Harrison]

In article <DUB125-W83DDABD8A...@phx.gbl>,

John David <johne...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 50 years ago when I first discovered the Central Council definitions
> (and thought even then that many of the points were either over
> prescriptive or just illogical!)

By pure chance (looking for something else) I just came across an article I
wrote for Odd Bob (ODG newsletter) about the 2002 Council meeting in
Norwich. The extract below (about a quarter of the article) might be of
interest.

---------
Contentious methods

The problem of method definitions is a long running saga. You might have
read Simon Linford's excellent series in the Ringing World explaining
things in layman's language. The immediate problems concern methods most
of us are unlikely to ring, but there are important underlying issues of
more general concern.

Despite caustic comments people sometimes make, we would all be far worse
off if method definitions did not exist. We take for granted that everyone
knows what Plain Bob, Grandsire, Stedman, Cambridge, etc. are, but it
wasn't always so. Standardisation of methods is a significant achievement
of the last century or so, but standardisation should not mean
fossilisation. Standards must adapt to the needs of ringers. How they do
so is at the heart of the current controversy.

The current rules seek to define what is currently being rung in fair
detail. Extending the boundary as the art progresses keeps adding extra
rules, special cases and exceptions, so the rules get progressively more
unwieldy. Also, anyone wishing to innovate must first break the rules
before persuading the powers that be to change them. The alternative now
being proposed is for the rules only to define what is essential to cover
the essence of what change ringing is about. Innovations would then be
filling in gaps rather than breaking bounds.

The two sides of the debate are far from reconciled, but there was give and
take in the debate, and Stephanie Warboys, spokesman for the new approach,
was elected to the Methods committee to work alongside the traditionalists.

Let us hope that this approach works.
-----------

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

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:44 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> Let us hope that this approach works.

​​It would appear that it didn't. Nor did anything change when Philip Earis was elected to the committee. And the current lack of visible activity by the current committee, despite having been directed two years ago to do that which it does not appear to be doing is rather dispiriting.

Rather than repeating the same failed approaches perhaps something new should be tried. While I don't think that everyone does, if one believes that this is still possible within the council, two possible ways forward are suggested by rule (not decision) 15.(1): the first by the last clause of the first sentence, and the other by the penultimate sentence. Perhaps someone on the council may want to move the adoption of one or the other of these approaches next month. It would be interesting to see if the council as a whole is sufficiently tired of this long and tawdry saga to actually try something different.

-- 

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

"Being a rock star may look easy, but believe you me, it’s a lot of

work. Have you tried to throw a TV off a hotel balcony into a swimming

pool lately?"    -- John Kelly, _Washington Post_, 31 August 2014

[Mark Davies]

I remember the 2002 shenanigans. I think I devised the "Toyota Axioms"
around this time.

The G&B have elected me as one of their CC reps. I intend to be at the
next meeting. I would like to (a) get onto the methods committee,
preferably as chairman, (b) implement in software most of the tasks Tony
Smith currently does, and move this and the method collections to a
CC-owned site, and (c) push through Tim's new "definitions" at the
earliest opportunity.

I know how to do step (b), which I think is the key to it all, although
I will probably need people to help me (e.g. RAS). How do I do (a)? Will
people support me in this?

MBD

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

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> (b) implement in software most of the tasks Tony Smith
> currently does, and move this and the method collections
> to a CC-owned site,

> I know how to do step (b), which I think is the key to it
> all, although I will probably need people to help me (e.g.
> RAS).

Happy to help.

> I would like to (a) get onto the methods committee,
> preferably as chairman,

> How do I do (a)?

The new triennium starts in 2017. How does one get on the
MC other than at the start of a triennium? There is
nominally a vacancy on the MC as the 2014 minutes say "One
vacancy was unfilled."

The committee elects the chairman, but I don't think it's
necessary to depose Niblett as chairman; pragmatically, if
it happens while Niblett is chair, I suspect it'd increase
the chances of it being accepted by the more conservative
elements of the Council. Niblett doesn't strike me as
inherently unreasonable. Woolley, of course, is a cretin,
and Bone is against change; but three-against-two with a
uncommitted chairman would significantly change the dynamics
of the committee.

RAS

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> How do I do (a)?

Folks on the council can vote you onto the committee, and if past experience is any guide, I think that is likely to happen. There has in the past been sufficient enthusiasm to get a few outsiders on when they've been willing to stand. And, if memory serves, last year they couldn't even get enough people to run to fill the available seats. Talk to folks as much as you can between now and arrival in Portmouth, and then continue over the drinks once you're there. Folks are generally supportive of people who want to join committees, the hard part is knowing who does. Make sure they know

On the other hand, becoming chairman requires the other members of the committee to elect you.

It would be great if you could get a few more folks to stand for the committee, too. It is long past time for an infusion of new blood. If you do get elected to the committee I would also suggest trying to get some folks not on the council invited to participate with the committee as advisors (I think official description is members of an "advisory panel"). That would clearly be a great help to this committee, as it has been to several other committees in the past.

Regarding your point (b) you may find it slightly more difficult than you think: it doesn't actually fall under the committee's terms of reference, if you can believe that! Of course, those can be changed, typically by the committee proposing new ones and asking the council to rubber stamp them, please. And there's plenty of precedent for committees doing bits of work and only after they've started doing them getting their terms of reference amended to say that's what they're supposed to be doing.

-- 

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

"He confessed to starting with his conclusions; and though most

philosophers do this, most denounce it as treason to philosophy."

              -- Will Durant, _The Age of Faith_

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> The new triennium starts in 2017.  How does one get on the MC other than at the start of a triennium?

I believe the triennium is no longer relevant for committee membership, at least not of the permanent committees. At least one third of the members of a committee must now step down every year. See the second sentence of rule (not decision) 15.(i).

-- 

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

"It is...a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the

world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered."

          -- Eugene P Wigner, paraphrasing Erwin Schrödinger in "The

Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences"

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> Folks are generally supportive of people who want to join

> committees, the hard part is knowing who does. Make sure they know

Oh, and be sure to line up two people who have explicitly agreed to nominate you and second that nomination.

-- 

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

"Sanity is not truth. Sanity is conformity to what is

socially expected. Truth is sometimes in conformity,

sometimes not."               -- Robert Pirsig, _Lila_

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:
>> The new triennium starts in 2017. How does one get on the MC other than
> at the start of a triennium?

(Actually that was me.)

> I believe the triennium is no longer relevant for committee membership, at
> least not of the permanent committees. At least one third of the members of
> a committee must now step down every year. See the second sentence of rule
> (not decision) 15.(i).

You're quite right. And the 2015 minutes show that a
vacancy persists. (I also notice they say "John Harrison,
while not wishing to stand for election, offered his
services to the Committee where appropriate." May we ask
whether this offer has been taken up?)

By reckoning it must be Woolley and Niblett up for election
this year. I imagine both will stand. With a vacancy, I
believe Mark would get on automatically unless a fourth
person stands too.

RAS

[Graham John]

With regard to b), I currently import both CCCBR and Provisional collection updates into Composition Library and also added all the Blocks, even though these are not currently available as input XML. It carries out quite a number of automatic checks on the methods, and most weeks I email Tony with corrections for things he has missed. It suggests to me that his software is fairly long in the tooth, and relies heavily on his knowledge and manual effort to get the data input and exported correctly. There is no reason why Composition Library, if required, could not be made master for the collections as it is already fully up to date and validates any manual or imported input, and it could export both XML and text versions (if needed) for those wanting them. It also automates links to Bellboard for "first rung" and "long length" performances, where available.

What is not available, and I think could become increasingly important, is the history of changes to the libraries. It would be valuable to have references to any old names used for methods, such that when someone finds an old peal board for example, they can find out what the modern name is. I suspect that Tony has a lot of this history in his own records.

Graham

[Mark Davies]

> (Useful advice from Don and RAS)

Excellent, thanks chaps. I will talk to John H. I'll also try and work
out who is on the council and could nominate me at the meeting. I assume
there is some suitable part of the agenda for this.

I'd like to hear of anyone else's experience of being on the MC. Philip?
Stephanie?

My naive thoughts are that it is hard to get anything to change when
Tony Smith is effectively the guardian of the method libraries. That
strikes me as the first thing to be sorted. To do so some action is
required, which (in these modern times) primarily strikes me as a
web-development job.

We have the skills to do this. I would like to develop a method-library
website alongside Bellboard. This seems sensible to me given the close
links between the performances entered on BB and the recording of
methods. However I don't know whether it is the best or only way
forward. Comments welcome (not least from Richard!).

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> With regard to b), I currently import both CCCBR and Provisional

> collection updates into Composition Library and also added all the

> Blocks, even though these are not currently available as input XML.

I'm in the midst of re-populating a database, and was about to figure out how to pull apart the text version of the blocks stuff. If you're in a position to export it as something a bit tidier and could send me a copy that would be a help. Might that be practical, or too inconvenient?

-- 

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

"Although an elderly man probably has a lot less future

than a man of twenty, he's far more careful about it."

                     -- Terry Pratchett, _Going Postal_

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> I'm in the midst of re-populating a database, and was about to

> figure out how to pull apart the text version of the blocks stuff.

> If you're in a position to export it as something a bit tidier and

> could send me a copy that would be a help. Might that be practical,

> or too inconvenient?

​​

Oh drat, my apologies, I meant to send that privately, not to the list. Which I'm now spamming yet again with an apology probably not of interest to anyone.

-- 

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

"Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time."

    -- Bill Gates, quoted by BBC News on 24 January 2004

[Derek Williams]

I am happy to support MBD as a member of the Methods Committee. I would probably be best seconding his nomination as a newby member of the Council. I would actually like to get on the Committee myself and push for reform, but I think MBD would be a better bet. Let's talk before the meeting about a strategy.

Derek 

[Mark Davies]

On 11/04/2016 23:09, Graham John wrote:
> With regard to b), I currently import both CCCBR and Provisional

> collection updates into Composition Library <https://complib.org> and

> also added all the Blocks, even though these are not currently available
> as input XML. It carries out quite a number of automatic checks on the
> methods, and most weeks I email Tony with corrections for things he has

> missed.It suggests to me that his software is fairly long in the tooth,

> and relies heavily on his knowledge and manual effort to get the data
> input and exported correctly.

That's very interesting indeed, Graham. Just to confirm - do you get the
source data from Bellboard, or from Tony's site?

> What is not available, and I think could become increasingly important,
> is the history of changes to the libraries. It would be valuable to have
> references to any old names used for methods, such that when someone
> finds an old peal board for example, they can find out what the modern
> name is. I suspect that Tony has a lot of this history in his own records.

Yes, agreed, this should be another objective.

[John Harrison]

In article <570C212A...@snowtiger.net>,

Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> I'll also try and work out who is on the council

See: http://cccbr.org.uk/members/list/ or:
http://cccbr.org.uk/members/index/

Of course that is the current list and won't show anyone standing down and
being replaced at the coming meeting, because the change doesn't take
effect until the day of the meeting.

[John Harrison]

In article <alpine.LRH.2.02.1...@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com>,
Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

> the 2015 minutes ... say "John Harrison, while not wishing to stand for

> election, offered his services to the Committee where appropriate."
> May we ask whether this offer has been taken up?

I haven't been asked to do anything explicitly, but I hope my Ringing World
articles were seen as a useful contribution.

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> We have the skills to do this. I would like to develop a method-library
> website alongside Bellboard. This seems sensible to me given the close links
> between the performances entered on BB and the recording of methods. However
> I don't know whether it is the best or only way forward. Comments welcome
> (not least from Richard!).

It's something Iain Anderson has been talking about recent,
and I think it's a good idea.

RAS

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought we had got rid of the 'heard by the public' requirement. Re-introducing it is a retrograde step. Why not just  I.41 Performance The ringing of a Block:  1.  for which details are intended to be published to the ringing community; ?

The problem is that many ringing performances are not published to the ringing community - e.g. nearly everything that's less than 1250 changes such as short touches rung for Sunday service.  It doesn't seem right to say these are not performances.  But note that I.1.1 isn't reintroducing the 'audible outside the building' requirement -- the use of 'and/or' covers non-public performances. 

Could I also raise the possibility of allowing what I would call 'method extents' to be used in peals and quarters and for method naming. I am thinking particularly of alliance and little minor methods that do not give true extents and therefore have to be spliced under the current rules. It seems an un-necessary imposition for these methods.

I hesitate on this primarily because of the complexity it might add to the document.  Expanded definitions of both 'extent' and 'true' would be required.   Our current definition of 'true' (F.11) is an achievement in that it's a single unified definition of truth that applies at all stages, but it already takes some thinking about.  Do you have a proposal for how 'method extents' could be added?  I'd also note that normal extents of Little and Alliance Minor methods can often be produced by adding a call that changes the hunt bell.

Regards
Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:54 AM, John David <johne...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I can find no definition of cross-section for the surprise etc definitions. This is a term which I can remember puzzling over about 50 years ago when I first discovered the Central Council definitions (and thought even then that many of the points were either over prescriptive or just illogical!) 

Cross section is defined in G.1.10.

 

As I think I have said before, if place is defined by referring to position in a row, why not use position, and thus simplify by using Place (or place-making) to refer only to repeated blows in the same position (which I think is how most practical ringers think of them) (I appreciate that there would still be confusion among those who talk about place bells when referring to starts).

I think the argument against is as you have highlighted at the end - that 'place' is used in contexts other than place-making, such as "4th's place bell" or "6th's place bob".  I'm not aware of 'position' commonly being used as an alternative form in these contexts.  

Your suggestion also seems to imply that the term 'make' is somewhat redundant in ringers' minds -- instead of saying "make 4th's (place)", we could equally say "place 4th's".  I can't say I've heard of 'place' being used in this way.

Regards
Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

I would like to (a) get onto the methods committee, preferably as chairman, (b) implement in software most of the tasks Tony Smith currently does, and move this and the method collections to a CC-owned site, and (c) push through Tim's new "definitions" at the earliest opportunity.

I know how to do step (b), which I think is the key to it all, although I will probably need people to help me (e.g. RAS). How do I do (a)? Will people support me in this?

Mark - excellent news.  When I saw you were joining the CC, I was hoping you had something like this in mind.  You certainly have my support, and I will lobby my local association's CC reps to vote you onto the MC.  (It may be worth others doing the same -- even though there is currently a vacancy on the MC, news of pro-change candidates seeking to get on may prompt status quo supporters to find their own candidates, thus leading to a contested election.)

I view (b) as equally important to (c) (and that's before I knew the current process is dependent on Graham catching errors on a weekly basis).  Hopefully there's an opportunity to reuse some of what Graham has already developed for automated method analysis and classification.  It would also seem sensible for bands ringing new methods to be able to input them into a dedicated section of BellBoard (i.e. not just as free-form footnotes) as part of their performance submission, and the new method(s) would then automatically feed downstream for validation and entry into the CC's method database. 

Tim

  

[Graham John]

Tim wrote:

> Hopefully there's an opportunity to reuse some of what Graham has already developed for automated method analysis and classification.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat, and I know people aren't yet familiar with Composition Library, however the functionality is already in place to make this process even smoother. You really want to catch any problems with naming and classifying at the earliest opportunity i.e. before they are rung. Conductors can add new methods to Composition Library as private methods and send the link to the method to the band for them to view the blue line. The name and classification is checked at the point of input, hence reducing the chance of an existing method being rung, the method being wrongly classified, and it can also be validated against the composition to be used. After it has been rung the performance is added to Bellboard, and at this point the links to any private methods in Composition Library could be published on Bellboard, preferably in a dedicated field for the purpose. This could trigger review by the Methods Committee, who could have the administration rights to change the library status of the method in Composition Library from Private to CCCBR with a cross referencing link back to Bellboard, thus formalising its addition to the official collection, and making it searchable by others. 

To illustrate, I have just added a private method for Bon Accord Delight Major rung over the weekend. This is not yet in the CCCBR method library, but if you click on the link you can view it [the no-entry sign against the name signifies that it is private]. If you click on the "Performance" accordian, it will expand to show the link to the performance on Bellboard. 

Graham  

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is that many ringing performances are not published to

> the ringing community - e.g. nearly everything that's less than 1250

> changes such as short touches rung for Sunday service. It doesn't

> seem right to say these are not performances. But note that I.1.1

> isn't reintroducing the 'audible outside the building' requirement

> -- the use of 'and/or' covers non-public performances.

But it still leaves out the touches of fewer than 1250 rows a handbell band rings on a Wednesday night, doesn't it? Even though those are arguably performances, too, aren't they? Seems rather inconsistent.

> I hesitate on this primarily because of the complexity it might add

> to the document. Expanded definitions of both 'extent' and 'true'

> would be required.

Actually the complexity of the definition of "true extent" isn't the fault of the different kinds of things folks might like to ring, it's the result of the insistence on having a *single* definition of "true extent". Much of the complexity in other areas is similarly the desire to have only one meaning for something. As Richard Smith long ago pointed out, in truth we ringers use "true" and "extent" to mean different things, and a true extent of 480 rows of Little Bob Minor is just a different kind of "true extent" than the more common meaning. Insistence on having such one size fits all schemes has, I think, led to many of the bogosities foisted on us over the years by the council. Possibly the worst example is method extension, which the latest version of your document has radically relaxed (of which relaxation I heartily approve, of course!). Truth and extentness might well benefit from some similar relaxation.

-- 

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

"Prognostications as to the literary and the philosophical

future are almost certain to be mistaken if not fatuous."

             -- George Steiner, _The Poetry of Thought_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEewFJ5GmbJCUuaX6QJS...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not read the whole thing yet, but responding to this point:

> The problem is that many ringing performances are not published to the
> ringing community - e.g. nearly everything that's less than 1250 changes
> such as short touches rung for Sunday service. It doesn't seem right to
> say these are not performances. But note that I.1.1 isn't reintroducing
> the 'audible outside the building' requirement -- the use of 'and/or'
> covers non-public performances.

It does sound like an over-complication. Presumably the intent was to
separate performance from non-performance (albeit imprecisely) not by
length but by analogy to a performance by other musicians (ie distinct from
a practice or a knock about).

Certainly there are performances shorter than quarter peals, and the
definition should encompass them, but bringing public audibility back in
doesn't seem the right way to do it.

a - Is a performance in hand to a private gathering be a 'performance'?
b - Is a performance that no one remembered to send up a 'performance'?

The common sense test says yes (which is why I used the word performance
because I can't think of another suitable one).

De facto, the Decisions can only be applied to a performance that has been
reported, so half of clause 1 is redundant.

Clauses 2 & 3 are clearly trying to get towards the intuitive feel for what
makes a 'performance' different, and they may be the closest ringers can
get to defining what a conventional musician would do in a 'performance'.
The note following the three clauses doesn't seem to fit here. It is a
performance reporting requirement in disguise, ie 'Reports of performances
by a single ringer shall state the name of the umpire who was present
throughout'.

Same logic as above, it was still a performance, but to be credible it
needs a witness.

[Derek Williams]

>Certainly there are performances shorter than quarter peals, and the 
>definition should encompass them, but bringing public audibility back in 

>doesn't seem the right way to do it. 

Performance   The ringing of a Block

This precisely defines a performance. It needs nothing else. It is surely the case that bands strive, some well, some ill, to achieve high standards and to put right mistakes quickly. Even if they don't and the performance is dire, it is still a performance.

The use of the word performance to describe the ringing of a block is useful, as John Harrison finds. Performance does not have to be used in the sense of a public performance and restricting it to this sense makes it less useful to us. . There are other meanings that do not require public performance and the word is most useful to us in these senses.

If we wish to add some criteria for published performances that require bands to confirm that they have striven for high standards, corrected errors quickly and, in the case of a solo handbell ringer that there is an umpire, these should be specified as reporting requirements.

Derek

[Derek Williams]

>I hesitate on this primarily because of the complexity it might add to the document.  Expanded definitions of both 'extent' and 'true' would be required.

I don't think so.

Extent  The complete set of distinct Rows possible at a particular Stage 

Method Extent  The complete set of distinct Rows possible at a particular Stage using a particular method or methods.

You might not need to include this definition: it is just a combination of extent and method.

Truth can remain the same.

R3 1, 2  and 3 need to be changed to refer to Method Extent rather just Extent. It will make 'Multi Method-Extent Round Blocks' a rather messy phrase, but the meaning is clear. So, for example, R3 1 becomes

1. Single Method Extent or Multi Method-Extent Round Blocks of Doubles; and/or

In most cases it will make absolutely no difference. For Alliance and Little methods it makes a big difference. And, pace Don Morrison, it preserves the one size fits all model.

Derek

[Graham John]

On 12 April 2016 at 23:54, Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

Method Extent  The complete set of distinct Rows possible at a particular Stage using a particular method or methods.

The problem with trying to define extent as anything different than "The complete set of distinct Rows possible at a particular Stage" is that it depends on too many other factors, so there is no definitive answer. For example the method extent of Little Bob Minor is only 480 rows with normal bobs and singles. If you use calls shifting the treble you can obtain 720. Similarly why would this logic not then also apply to Cambridge Surprise Major? It is limited by falseness, and the method extent would again vary depending upon the calls used.

When discussed previously, we settled on a single meaning of extent, and concluded that multiple 480s of Little Bob Minor do not satisfy the definition of truth. Under the proposal this doesn't, of course, mean that people can't go off and ring quarters and peals containing only 480s of Little Bob, but under the reporting requirements they would have to declare that what was rung was not a True Round Block. The beauty of this is that it leaves it up to the bands themselves and the readers of the performance reports to determine independently whether this is acceptable or not acceptable in their eyes, and not the CC.

Graham  

[John Harrison]

In article <f49a4bf0-ef4b-48e5...@googlegroups.com>,

Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Performance The ringing of a Block

> This precisely defines a performance. It needs nothing else.

Whilst I am not happy with the wording in v7 I understand Tim's desire to
find a definition that differentiates between a 'performance' and other
ringing that is not a 'performance'.

Applying the common sense test (or by analogy with other musicians) a
practice is not a performance, and in the context of ringing there are
other things that the ringers would not consider to be a performance.

It's not just length either, intent comes into it too. If we ring a course
of Cambridge Max at a 12-bell practice that is a block of 528 but it might
signify no more than that there were only 12 of us at the start of the
practice. When we rang 300 Stedman Triples for the tercentenary of
Stedman's death that was a much shorter block but it was a performance.

In these cases there was a correlation between the nature of the ringing
(performance / non performance) and whether they were published (BellBoard
& Ringing World) and with the intended audience (for the Stedman we put
notices round the church and informed the local press).

But these external factors are surely consequences of the ringing being
intended as a performance, not the reason that it was a performance.

If at the end of the course of Cambridge Max no more ringers had turned up
and the conductor decided to put in a bob Home and keep going, and if no
one else turned up so the conductor put in two more Homes, then the ringers
would all feel they had rung a quarter and it would probably be sent up.

In that case the transition from a practice touch to a quarter peal was
made part way through. Was it sent up because the ringers considered it a
performance? Or did it become a performance by virtue of being sent up?

Regards

[Tim Barnes]

On Apr 12, 2016 12:02, "Don Morrison" <d...@ringing.org> wrote:
> Actually the complexity of the definition of "true extent" isn't the fault of the different kinds of things folks might like to ring, it's the result of the insistence on having a *single* definition of "true extent". Much of the complexity in other areas is similarly the desire to have only one meaning for something. As Richard Smith long ago pointed out, in truth we ringers use "true" and "extent" to mean different things, and a true extent of 480 rows of Little Bob Minor is just a different kind of "true extent" than the more common meaning. Insistence on having such one size fits all schemes has, I think, led to many of the bogosities foisted on us over the years by the council. Possibly the worst example is method extension, which the latest version of your document has radically relaxed (of which relaxation I heartily approve, of course!). Truth and extentness might well benefit from some similar relaxation.

There is certainly a thought by at least some of us that having single definitions for things where this makes sense is of much greater benefit to change ringing than any negatives it might cause.  I would count truth and extent as falling into this category.  

Don - could you elaborate on how you would implement the relaxations you're suggesting?  I, for one, would need more information before being able to form a view.

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:15 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Whilst I am not happy with the wording in v7 I understand Tim's desire to
find a definition that differentiates between a 'performance' and other
ringing that is not a 'performance'.

Yes, that was the aim - to differentiate the two ways of ringing a block, i.e. to practice it (primary intention is to develop the skills of ringers) and to perform it (primary intention is to make the best sound).  And that touches published to the ringing community are performance mode, not practice mode.

Of course this is a gray area as a single piece of ringing often involves both intentions, and John gives a good example of practice ringing turning into a QP performance when no one else shows up.  But performance vs. practice still seems to be a valuable distinction to make.

Can anyone suggest an improved wording for I.1?

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

... however the functionality is already in place to make this process even smoother.

Yes, I agree the process Graham proposes is better -- having the option to privately validate a new method in a future version of the CC method library prior to its performance, and the new method is then switched by the MC to become part of the main library once the MC has reviewed the performance that names it.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

​On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> could you elaborate on how you would implement the relaxations

> you're suggesting? I, for one, would need more information before

> being able to form a view.

http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2009-September/003051.html

I think a rough summary is that true and complete extent ceases to be meaningful in a vacuum, and instead needs to be understood as true and complete extent with respect to some property or properties.

It's also interesting to note that if we subsequently expand the universe of things we're considering beyond some of the explicit bounds we've place on ourselves, even an fairly vanilla extent of minor might well be more than 720 rows. Consider, for example, Alan Winter's Cylindrical. The obvious extent of that is 1,440: the 720 rows we all know and love, plus the 720 further ones that have one bell both leading and lying, and another bell absent entirely.

​​

-- 

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

"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think

before you break 'em."           -- Terry Pratchett, _Thief of Time_

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:
> ​I think a rough summary is that true and complete extent ceases to be meaningful in a vacuum, and instead needs to be understood as true and complete extent with respect to some property or properties.

Ok, but my question was on implementation.  Would you envisage trying to flesh out these properties and the contexts in which they apply, and then include these in a future version of the Decisions?  Or do you favour a different approach, in which case what broadly would that be?

Tim