Methods Committee

[Derek Williams]

Giles Blundell's report from the Administrative Committee includes "Yes, Methcom are, as part of the process of updating the decisions about peals and methods, drafting a proposal about what is a peal that the Central Council will be able to record. No, it hasn’t been done yet, and as the committee chair couldn’t be at the meeting because a family emergency rightly took priority, all we could really do was note progress. But the intention is to get something out for consultation, review the feedback, and have something that the council can vote on in Edinburgh in May."

They're going to have to speed things up if there is to be any time for meaningful consultation.

[John Harrison]

In article <afedbd53-10b1-43cf...@googlegroups.com>,
Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Quoting GRB, whose original I can't see]

> it hasn't been done yet, ... the intention is to get something out for

> consultation, review the feedback, and have something that the council
> can vote on in Edinburgh in May.

The message was a bit more specific than that. We were told (from PDN)
there would be draft proposals by the end of the year and that the
Committee would work on the responses during Jan & February in time for
final proposals well ahead of the deadline. FJPB (who was present) added
that an initial draft would be out for circulation by the end of October.

That would seem to indicate a two stage process, which I think would be
good. OTOH the two dates might just be cautious and optimistic versions of
the same thing.

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

[Graham John]

John H wrote on 17 Oct 2016:

>The message was a bit more specific than that. We were told
> (from PDN) there would be draft proposals by the end of the
> year and that the Committee would work on the responses
> during Jan & February in time for final proposals well ahead
> of the deadline. FJPB (who was present) added that an
> initial draft would be out for circulation by the end of October.

The end of the year is rapidly approaching. The momentum created by
Tim's initiative has been lost, a year has passed since the meeting in
Southwark and six months since the Methods Committee gave another
commitment to act. Does anyone know whether any work has been on draft
proposals at all?

Graham

[Philip Earis]

It's farcical - another groundhog year of no action, where yet again the only announcement comes a few weeks before the CC meeting that Peter is a busy chap,  but that there will be developments brought to the next Admin Committee meeting.  There never are.  There just never are.

Tim is a busy chap himself, but managed to bring together many stakeholders over an extended period and delicately coordinate a huge corpus of technical work.

You, Graham, are a busy chap and yet have managed to bring complib to fruition.

Peter just about managed to chair a meeting in Southwark, which he had to be effectively dragged to, and for which he couldn't even prepare any minutes (as promised), let alone follow up on the agreed actions.  

When will people realise that there are significant and fundamental obstacles to progress on the CC, and with the CC itself?

[John Harrison]

In article <303610a8-15f4-4b78...@googlegroups.com>,
Philip Earis <pj...@cantab.net> wrote:

> another groundhog year of no action, ...

The omens don't look good but I am waiting to hear how the two members of
this list who are on the Methods Committee answer Graham's question before
jumping to any conclusions. There is over 10% of the year still to run,
so we may yet be pleasantly surprised.

> When will people realise that there are significant and fundamental
> obstacles to progress on the CC, and with the CC itself?

In case you hadn't noticed there was an overwhelming vote in May to set up
a group to look at how the Council should be reformed. That suggests that
those who voted 'have realised'.

Regards

[Richard Smith]

John Harrison wrote:

> The omens don't look good but I am waiting to hear how the two members of
> this list who are on the Methods Committee answer Graham's question before
> jumping to any conclusions.

Three members: Mark, Leigh and Dave.

Leigh is on honeymoon at the moment so may be out of
contact, but hopefully one of the other two can update us.

RAS

[Tim Barnes]

I've been meaning to follow up with this group for several weeks to try and find out what the latest is on the Decisions revamp, and more specifically, ask the Methods Committee members on this list whether they thought there was value in us continuing to debate and develop draft wording.  I haven't had time to work on this over the past few months, but do now have some time available.

On the other hand, if the Methods Committee is making progress on its own draft (hopefully taking into consideration some of our previous work), then it would seem to make sense to wait for them to publish their draft and then we can provide feedback.

So yes, an update from Mark, Leigh or Dave would be very helpful.  It would be great to finally see a modernized set of definitions / requirements passed at next May's meeting, and I see these as important theoretical underpinnings for change ringing that are needed regardless of the future form of the Council.

Mark also had great plans for modernizing the methods library database / website and automating much of the process for updating the library.  It would be interesting to hear if any progress has been made on this (recognizing that this is no small task).

Regards

Tim

[Mark Davies]

There has not, unfortunately, been much progress by the Methods Committee.

We had a small chat over lunch at the Central Council weekend, but no
formal meetings have taken place since. This is partly no doubt due to
apathy, but also because of people's availability. I will admit that I
have been struggling to commit to dates for what meetings were proposed;
I've been moving house over summer and autumn, and this and a number of
other things have made life difficult. I did know this was going to
happen when I was proposed to the Committee, so perhaps I should have
declined, however I decided to bite the bullet and give it a go anyway.
I expect to have more time and energy next year.

Last month Peter sent out a document detailing some ways to make
progress on Decision changes. There was no direct mention of this list
or our proposals, although the kinds of changes he talked about are
things we have discussed. I get the feeling his view is that incremental
change to the Decisions year by year will achieve results. I know most
of us don't feel that is good enough.

Tim asks about my plans for modernising the method libraries and
website. For the reasons given above, I have so far done absolutely
bugger all about this, other than ascertain that at least some of my MC
colleagues are in favour of the idea, and that the CC has IT resources
for hosting. What I am going to need (apart from a concrete project and
a good design brief) is some programmers to help me turn it into
reality. Any volunteers? I was rather hoping Graham would get himself
elected to the CC/MC next year, and lend me some of his CompLib
technology to help in this task.

With the CC in general I get the impression that, whilst everyone is
actually trying to do their best, the people with the drive/vision/
iconoclasm/desire for change are exactly the ones who don't have any
spare time in their lives. The people with the spare time to devote to
what is essentially a volunteer activity are generally older, more
relaxed, more happy with the status quo, and more in favour of gradual
change. I guess this is probably the case in most volunteer organisations.

Anyway, that's about the size of it. I do apologise for the paucity of
progress. Furious action awaits, next year.

MBD

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

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Furious action awaits, next year.

At least this has the virtue of being a comfortably familiar fantasy, doesn't it? :-)

I am reminded of the definition of insanity frequently attributed, almost certainly incorrectly, to Albert Einstein: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I also remain amused that the most recent utterance regarding this effort on the committee's page on the CCCBR web site is "A meeting to discuss future requirements and nature of any rules and recommendations relating to peal ringing, methods, compositions and records, currently embodied in Decisions (D) to (G) and (I) and (J), will be held at Southwark Cathedral conference centre on the afternoon of Sunday, 11th October commencing at 2.00pm."

That is, I believe, 11th October 2015, over a year ago now. It would be nice if it were at least replaced with a report on that meeting.

And speaking of October, wasn't there a document of some sort promised for the end of October THIS year?

Still, I am at least grateful for the changes made to the rules this past May, and remain hopeful more will be done this coming year, albeit in the same, breathless, last minute fashion. I'd be especially pleased to see the truly appalling notion of non-method blocks removed by simply defining them all to be what they are, methods, simply with some properties apparently not liked by whomever insisted on the non-method block foolishness.

-- 

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

"Insanity is contagious."     -- Joseph Heller, _Catch-22_

[Mark Davies]

On 23/11/2016 21:20, Don Morrison wrote:

> At least this has the virtue of being a comfortably familiar fantasy,
> doesn't it? :-)

It is less likely to remain a fantasy if people like you help out, Don.
Can you spare me some design or development resource?

> I'd be especially pleased to see the truly appalling notion of non-
> method blocks removed by simply defining them all to be what they
> are, methods, simply with some properties apparently not liked by
> whomever insisted on the non-method block foolishness.

Absolutely. Peter does have this on his list, indirectly: he's
suggesting removal of the "false in plain course" and "more than one
lead" strictures, which (if I have this correct) would leave nothing in
the "blocks" category. You might be interested to know that he also
accepts we need input from others "like Graham and Don". What I need to
talk to him about is using the resources of this list (and ringing-theory).

[Adam Beer]

I'm sorry to seem like a dinosaur, but I thought one of the basic tenets of change ringing was to avoid repeating changes- surely methods false in the plain course go against this?

Cheers

Adam

> --
> 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/b996358d-049e-bd5e-cde2-88810ddff9e3%40snowtiger.net.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Adam Beer <adam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry to seem like a dinosaur, but I thought one of the basic

> tenets of change ringing was to avoid repeating changes- surely

> methods false in the plain course go against this?

​​

No, not at all. Such methods are used today in true peals of spliced, and a band led by Tony Cox has rung a true peal of such a major method (Normandy Surprise, which the CCCBR insists on calling a non-method, Not A Block Major). Even Price's popular 5,090 of Cambridge Major is a false round block, simply brought round early with a single, before the falseness appears. And so far this year there have been over 1,100 perfectly acceptable peals rung that have contained *lots* of repeated rows, all of them appearing at least seven times apiece.

What is so bizarre is that while the Council lets such methods be rung, it insists on pretending they're not methods, when any ringer looking at one is unlikely to distinguish it from a thing the Council is perfectly happy to call a method. For example, have a look at

http://ringing.org/puzzle.html

-- 

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

"The details of [Donald Martino's] _Pianississimo_ make it one

of the great unsuccessful pieces for piano of our time."

        -- David Burge, _Twentieth-Century Piano Music_

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> It is less likely to remain a fantasy if people like you help out,

> Don. Can you spare me some design or development resource?

I am quite happy to help out with the revisions of the rules in the same ways, and to the same degrees, as I've helped (or, perhaps more accurately, hindered) Tim's efforts. Indeed, I think I have responded reasonably promptly to what few things the methods committee has published over the last few years (again, perhaps more of a hindrance than a help, I fear).

As to software, again, I'm perfectly willing to comment and suggest. But as to rolling up my sleeves and contributing code to such a thing, I think I have more pressing matters to attend to. For example, the nice people working on Graham's Composition Library have supplied me with an embarrassingly long list of things I need to fix in the contents of ringing.org, and getting that attended to clearly takes precedence over any new efforts. Indeed, I'm mortified at how long it's taking me to get to them.  And, just making matters all that more complicated, my ISP is threatening some rather nasty changes that are requiring a big pile of work on my part to ensure that ringing.org stays up next year.

But thanks for the confidence implied by your asking.

And, while I'm at it, some advice as you try to enroll folks: figure out some way to vet them for how much they are likely to contribute. Over the past decade or so more than a dozen people have volunteered to help populate the peal compositions database underlying ringing.org. With the sole, wonderful exception of Richard Allton, who has continually and cheerfully helped add new things to it, no one has ever actually lifted a finger to help that I can tell. Indeed, I've stopped asking, as it ended up wasting a lot of my time educating folks, who've done nothing, on what needs doing. Time that would have been better spent just doing a little more myself. I'm thankful those who volunteered but didn't follow through at least wanted to help, but, ah, well, um, you get the idea. Anyway, I suggest you be grateful for whatever help you do actually get, but make your plans such that everything doesn't come crashing down if you don't get much. Graham may be a useful source of advice, as he seems to have been far more successful than I ever was in getting others to help. In fact, on further reflection, I guess I should view the folks working on Composition Library as helping immeasurably with ringing.org, too, in that they have been exceedingly diligent and clear in pointing out problems, for which I am grateful. And shamefaced about how long it's taking me to rectify them.

-- 

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

"Thanks for trying to try to remember to help."

          -- Mike Schulte, personal communication

[Mark Davies]

OK thanks Don. With ringing.org, you have probably been suffering a
mini-version of the lethargy/inability to devote time that afflicts the
MC and perhaps the whole of the CC. There is also a form of English
politeness whereby people who would like to help you, but know they
won't actually be able to, will still offer to help!

Don't be shamefaced about ringing.org. It's a fantastic resource, and
whatever imperfections it has must be small, since I've never noticed
them. In my day job I'm paid to sit day in day out making software as
good as it can be, whereas in my spare time I do not have that luxury,
so things like SMC32, Elf and CAS are unfinished and not as good as they
should be. I'm sure it's the same with you. It is frustrating I know!

But we do need to move to a proper modern world where decent software
services publish, process and curate the method libraries, and we need
to do that using volunteer effort.

[Graham John]

The frustrating thing is that all the MC needed to do following the Southwark meeting was to endorse the approach, provide feedback on Tim's document and give some direction on how to prepare it for presentation to Council. Had that happened it could have been given the further refinement and wider exposure necessary to get it passed in full at next year's Council meeting.

Graham

[John Harrison]

MBD:
> What I need to talk to him about is using the resources ...

GACJ:
> The frustrating thing is ...

I can understand the MC wanting to own the solution, and I can understand
that its members are busy, but surely there is a way for it to entrain the
resources and energy that are available to help, which so far it has failed
to do.

[Mark Davies]

Hi Graham,

Are you able to get yourself nominated to the CC for this year? I really
need your help on the MC...

[Graham John]

Yes, I am a CC Rep for the ODG now. Are you going to offer to take
over as Chair, Mark?

Graham

> --
> 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/fda603eb-ed5f-8df8-a3bf-f924b98da9ea%40snowtiger.net.

[Don Morrison]

​Unless things have changed since I was on the Council, the chairman of a committee (other than the Administrative Committee) is decided by majority vote of the committee's members, typically conducted during a break shortly after the committee's members have been elected.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

Yes, I am a CC Rep for the ODG now. Are you going to offer to take
over as Chair, Mark?

Graham

On 26 November 2016 at 19:51, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Are you able to get yourself nominated to the CC for this year? I really
> need your help on the MC...
>
> MBD
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> --
> 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-subgroup+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to rt-rules-subgroup@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/fda603eb-ed5f-8df8-a3bf-f924b98da9ea%40snowtiger.net.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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-subgroup+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rt-rules-subgroup@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/CAHe9%2BAfbJ2YS2errcJs2cq4Kwv0iZVvp9VXsL2UDC843Tg8QpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
"After all these years I have observed that beauty, like happiness,
is frequent. A day does not pass when we are not, for an instant,
in paradise."  
        -- Jorge Luis Borges, _Los Conjurados_, tr Willis Barnstone

[Mark Davies]

Graham asks,

> Yes, I am a CC Rep for the ODG now. Are you going to offer to take
> over as Chair, Mark?

Possibly. You would do a better job than me though Graham!

Cheers
M

[Tim Barnes]

Either Mark or Graham as chair of the Methods Committee sounds excellent to me!

I'd intended to see if I could become a CC rep for the North American Guild, but didn't realize the deadline for getting on the NAG ballot was as early as it was, and so I missed it (and in any case there were already 4 candidates running -- the NAG's full number of reps).  But I'll look into this for the following year.

From Mark's earlier note, it sounds as though Peter is planning some incremental changes for May's meeting (removing the 'false in plain course' and 'more than one lead' strictures), which would at least be a good step forward in eliminating non-method blocks.  I'd suggest removing the restriction on using the identity change as another simple (and related) improvement (so it can be used in blocks that exceed an extent).

I guess overall I'm reluctant at this stage to spend a lot more time developing draft language without some sort of indication from Peter that this is helpful.  If there's the potential for a new chairman of the MC next May, perhaps it's better to wait for that, and then see how this group might be able to assist the new MC team.

Tim

--
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-subgroup+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rt-rules-subgroup@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/abfc99ca-1675-141e-028a-9cbd5ef6d57f%40snowtiger.net.