Your letter in this evening's RW

[Don Morrison]

Peter,

I was interested in reading your letter in this evening's RW, and have several comments on it.

You note that motions are not due until April. When in April? I seem to recall the Admin committee meeting is in late March or early April, so is it early April you are aiming at? It is now February, so that is but two months hence. Considering it's already taken the committee over eight months since the last Council meeting to produce its initial draft, do you really think two months is sufficient to gather feedback and publish subsequent drafts, also requiring feedback?

Your response does seem rather vague. It says there has been progress, but to the best of my knowledge no one outside the committee has seen any evidence of any since the Southsea meeting over eight months ago. You had promised more transparency and openness, so can we please have some sort of interim description of precisely what *has* transpired in those eight months? And a new date by which you intend to publish the first draft seeking initial comments (I'm sure doing a good job will require multiple iterations), as your initial promise of end of 2016 is now long past?

You also note that you have no intention of updating the web site until there is a new site. Surely there is no reason you cannot update the current site now, before the new site is available. That would be an excellent, and easy, step.

-- 

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

"The goal of education is to make up for the shortcomings in our

instinctive ways of thinking about the physical and social world."

             -- Steven Pinker, _The Stuff of Thought_

[David Richards]

Hi Don,

The issues which affect the ICT committee have a bit of impact here. Currently messages to the CCCBR email lists are not being delivered to those with non-'cccbr.org.uk' addresses (the vast majority of addresses). The ISP is investigating, but this has been a running sore which has been affecting communication for the last year. We are close to contract renewal with the ISP, so hopefully they might be reasonably motivated to sort it out.

The short of it is that I don't expect your message to be delivered to the methods committee directly.

On 3 Feb 2017 04:16, "Don Morrison" <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

You also note that you have no intention of updating the web site until there is a new site. Surely there is no reason you cannot update the current site now, before the new site is available. That would be an excellent, and easy, step.

Our long-running inability to switch to a new content-managed website should be coming to an end, hence the ICT-mandated 'freeze' on the old site. The freeze came into effect at the end of January ahead of the planned switchover to the new site on Monday 13th February.

You're correct that we could 'sign a disclaimer' and edit the old site (with the knowledge that those changes might well be lost). However, there's nothing to stop us working on the new site immediately - if Peter or other members of the methods committee need help with that, I can sort that out.

All the best,

Dave

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hence the ICT-mandated 'freeze' on the old site. The freeze came

> into effect at the end of January ahead of the planned switchover to

> the new site on Monday 13th February.

Was this freeze described to the ringing community at large and I just missed it? I'm particularly puzzled that I can see no mention of it on the front page of the old site itself. It seems an odd thing to keep secret.

In addition, I'm having trouble following that it is actually happening. A glance shows at least two new items this month, one dated today. So, what's frozen?

Regarding the methods committee: if the freeze came into effect the end of January, then it was *not* in effect when Peter wrote his letter, as my understanding is letters for publication have to be in Robert's hands by Monday. And the freeze certainly hasn't been in effect for nearly all of the fifteen months since the meeting happened which the Methods Committee's page still describes in the future tense. 

-- 

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

"The digital objects of today are the incunabula of a not-too-distant

tomorrow--our palimpsests, our geniza bits, the refuse of our restless

and inconsolable appetite for change and immortality."

    -- Matthew Battles, _Library: An Unquiet History_

[David Richards]

Hi Don,

On 3 February 2017 at 13:30, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Was this freeze described to the ringing community at large and I just missed it? I'm particularly puzzled that I can see no mention of it on the front page of the old site itself. It seems an odd thing to keep secret.

No, it hasn't been announced to the ringing community at large - the banner saying that the 'new site is under development' at the top of the old site is as far as it goes.

I wasn't in favour of making a big song and dance of (temporarily) removing functionality to make way for the site which ~6-7 years behind schedule.

 

A glance shows at least two new items this month, one dated today. So, what's frozen?

Nominally 'everything'. People can, evidently, still make additions, it's just that we won't guarantee that recent changes are brought across. (Or at least, they won't be brought across by the ICT committee). Hopefully that doesn't inherently mean loss of information, but does pass the buck to the committees themselves to make sure they are in control of their section of the site.

 

Regarding the methods committee: if the freeze came into effect the end of January, then it was *not* in effect when Peter wrote his letter 

My chronology is a little off - actually the request for a freeze came out on 19th Jan, so was in place when Peter wrote his message. But this is a side-issue - there are evidently plenty of channels that the methods committee could use for communication (regardless of an individual freeze or not) and it just isn't happening at the moment. I take my share of the blame for that.

Cheers,

Dave

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently messages to the CCCBR email lists are not being delivered....

At least three members of the Methods Committee will have received my message through other channels. I presume one of them will have forwarded it to the whole committee, since they must have some private list or whatever set up. If this is not the case and I need to forward it to all of them individually, please, would one of you three let me know and I'll attend to it.

-- 

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

"The best way to convince a skeptic that you are trustworthy ... is

to be trustworthy."        -- Steven Pinker, _The Blank Slate_

[Mark Davies]

Hi Don,

I've forwarded this to the MC list as requested.

Did you see my questions about that peal composition of yours which is a
duplicate of one by Richard Angrave?

Cheers
M

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

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Did you see my questions about that peal composition of yours which

> is a duplicate of one by Richard Angrave?

One of Bristol Max, two years ago? I replied then, and concluded he got there first, and expunged the copy claiming it was mine.

If there's something more recent, no, I don't think I've seen it, and searching my mail hasn't turned it up.

-- 

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

"If I knew of something that could serve my nation but would ruin

another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man

and only then a Frenchman."      -- Montesquieu, _Pensées_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> One of Bristol Max, two years ago? I replied then, and concluded he got
> there first, and expunged the copy claiming it was mine.
> If there's something more recent, no, I don't think I've seen it, and
> searching my mail hasn't turned it up.

No, the one I've emailed you twice about, mailed ringing-theory about,
and put messages on the Ringing Methods facebook group about! It can't
be just my email server not working. ;-)

The peal is 5088 Yorkshire/Xerces Major. Your version is this:

http://ringing.org/main/pages/dfm/major/single-surprise/x#2783

Richard's (from compositions.org.uk) is:

5088 Yorkshire Surprise Major
Composed by: Richard J Angrave
23456 B M W H
------------------
53462 S S
64532 SS - S
324756 - In
273546 -
643257 F -
42356 S 2
------------------
3 Part.
62cru's inc. 18 each 56's & 65's; 18 each 7568, 8765.
40 little bell roll-ups inc. 13 each 2345, 5432.
6 5678, 3 8765 off the front.
No.99. Published in RW4966, p620

As you can see, the figures are identical. Is it possible to work out
who got there first?

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> No, the one I've emailed you twice about, mailed ringing-theory

> about, and put messages on the Ringing Methods facebook group about!

> It can't be just my email server not working. ;-)

​​

Can you please forward me the text of a copy of one of the messages you sent me, with the header intact? I'd like to try to figure out what's going on. Besides asking GMail to look for messages from you, I've now asked it to look for messages containing "Yorkshire Angrave" or containing "2783" and it keeps not finding anything relevant.

Regarding the peal itself: I uploaded the copy attributed to me to the web site on 6 March 2003, so presumably worked it out that day, or a few days earlier. Please let me know if you decide I've misattributed to I can fix it.

-- 

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

"[Unlike tyrants] the cause of the people is indeed but little

calculated as a subject for poetry...it presents no immediate

or distinct images to the mind."

          -- William Hazlitt, _Character of Shakespeare's Plays_

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> No, ... mailed ringing-theory about

​​

Strange. I've just searched the ringing-theory archives for "yorkshire angrave" and the only hit it came up with was from 2011 and had the subject "5042 Cambridge Maximus - avoiding a dodgy wrong finish" and did not seem in any way relevant.

-- 

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

"No reality is accessible to human understanding outside the a priori

grid of time...except one. That of music. Each piece of music, whether

it is the Ring or one of Webern's cello studies scarcely over a minute

long, re-creates time. It creates its own time."

          -- George Steiner, _The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H._

[Mark Davies]

Don - my email to ringing-theory was sent Web Feb 1 10:16:34 UTC
entitled "Don Morrison or Richard Angrave?". There were several further
messages on the same thread!

I've forwarded you one of the emails I sent you directly (actually
attached it to a new mail so you can see the original headers). Let me
know if you fail to receive this in the next 24 hours.

Richard's version of the composition was published in RW4966, p620. What
date would that have been? Anthony Cotton (on r-t) was of the view that
the subject of these two peals had come up before, and Richard thought
his composition was contemporaneous with yours. Does anyone know how to
contact Richard to confirm this?

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Don - my email to ringing-theory was sent Web Feb 1 10:16:34 UTC

> entitled "Don Morrison or Richard Angrave?". There were several

> further messages on the same thread!

Much of the mystery is now solved:

For some reason GMail, in its wisdom, decided your messages to me, as well as the whole, corresponding thread on ringing-theory, were spam. Amusingly it also decided the copy you just re-sent to me was also spam. Though I suppose once it decided one message was spam, it's perfectly understandable that it would think all the rest are, too. Fortunately your followup message saying "I re-sent a copy of it" but not including another copy of it got through OK.

I've now scanned the couple of hundred spam entries I've received in the last few days, and see no other false positives. I've also done a search of my whole spam bucket, and no other legitimate ringing-theory threads were consigned to spam in the past month, which is how long GMail keeps my the contents of my spam bucket around for me to double check. However there was one ringing-theory message that appeared to be a bit of spam sent from a real subscriber to ringing-theory whose machine had been infected with some sort of malware sending nefarious mail ostensibly from him, though obviously not. I don't know if this may have made the GMail spam detection thing nervous; seems unlikely since I've gotten plenty of other ringing-theory threads that it is content to view as ham, not spam. Another possibility is that GMail thinks you are suspect, which might accord with your having said in one of the messages I've just unearthed that you've had trouble with mail elsewhere, too.

So, two bits of the mystery remain unsolved: (1) why GMail thinks it's spam -- I'm guessing We'll Never Know; (2) why searching the ringing-theory archives comes up empty -- I'm guessing there's some lag between when mail is sent and when it shows up in the searchable archive, and this thread is just too new, and we have to let it age a bit, so I'll try to remember to re-check the archive in about a week.

> Richard's version of the composition was published in RW4966, p620.

If I've done the arithmetic correctly, RW4966 would have been sometime in 2006. However, more telling is the notation that it was rung at Hinkley in April 2004, a month before John Keeler called the version attributed to me. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is just delete the copy attributed to me and save any future confusion.

-- 

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

"Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies,

their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as

such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of

man who can fabricate it."

          -- Hannah Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_

[Mark Davies]

I think Richard is right that my mailserver's disabled SPF wasn't
helping. I've tried to fix that.

> If I've done the arithmetic correctly, RW4966 would have been sometime
> in 2006. However, more telling is the notation that it was rung at
> Hinkley in April 2004, a month before John Keeler called the version
> attributed to me. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is just delete the
> copy attributed to me and save any future confusion.

No! Don't delete your composition, Don, because there are historical
peals referencing it - not least the John Keeler one. You could annotate
it to attribute Richard.

However I feel you have a claim on the arrangement. What counts for me
is the date of composition, not the date of first performance, and here
your 2003 date appears to be the earliest - unless Richard can give us
further information.

MBD

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFUYnKbeKaB0SnjUQbFcrGa6eL+6H8s22=bCMJ8e...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> why searching the ringing-theory archives comes up empty -- I'm guessing
> there's some lag between when mail is sent and when it shows up in the
> searchable archive, and this thread is just too new, and we have to let
> it age a bit

I don't know what software runs the R-T list but with MailMan messages
appear in the archive as soon as they are sent (well within a minute or so
anyway).

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

[Mark Davies]

The MC had a Skype meeting tonight, rejoice! No-one objecting to change.
Tim and Graham should be getting their invitations to join us soon - as
consultant members initially. Another meeting scheduled for a
fortnight's time.

We need to suggest some suitable wording for the TOR for the committee,
to be proposed at the 2017 AGM. Can this list help? I know we discussed
this before.

[Tim Barnes]

Mark -- thanks, sounds good.  Yes, sure this group can help on the TOR.  Is the plan to use the wording Graham proposed a couple of weeks ago as a starting point?

Tim

[Mark Davies]

Tim writes,

> Yes, sure this group can help on the TOR.
> Is the plan to use the wording Graham proposed a couple of weeks ago as
> a starting point?

Having a brain like a sieve, I'd forgotten the detail we went into
before. Yes, Graham's wording already looks very good to me. What do
others think?

I like Don's more succinct suggestion too, but perhaps Graham's
comprehensive version is the way to go.

Don also writes,

> If the travesty that is non-method blocks persists, I guess the two
> occurrences of "methods" in that should be "methods and non-method
> blocks". Yuk.

Yes. I forgot to say that I will also be tabling a motion to rename the
Methods Committee to the "Methods and Blocks Committee". Or, no, in fact
I thought the "Blocks and Methods Committee" was better still.

(For avoidance of doubt - just kidding!!)

[John Harrison]

In article <0611e002-fc46-e316...@snowtiger.net>,

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

> Graham's wording already looks very good to me.

Agreed.

> I like Don's more succinct suggestion too, but ...

It is too succinct and a bit cryptic (eg not everyone thinks of maintaining
definitions as providing tools. Graham's is better because it provides a
hook for each key aspect. The bit in [...] shouldn't be included of
course.

> I will also be tabling a motion to rename ... the "Blocks and Methods
> Committee" was better still.

I assume that's 'block' as in 'road block'. ;-)

> (For avoidance of doubt - just kidding!!)

Quite

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> So, two bits of the mystery remain unsolved: ... (2) why searching

> the ringing-theory archives comes up empty -- I'm guessing there's

> some lag between when mail is sent and when it shows up in the

> searchable archive, and this thread is just too new, and we have to

> let it age a bit, so I'll try to remember to re-check the archive in

> about a week.

I've just checked, and searching the archives turns up all the messages in that thread just fine now. I guess the most likely explanation if that is probably some sort of delay before messages to the list become so visible.

-- 

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

"Artists fables are worth attending. Lies of art ring true."

                           -- Ned Rorem, _A Ned Rorem Reader_

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

[In response to Peter's letting the RW]

> You note that motions are not due until April. When in April? I seem

> to recall the Admin committee meeting is in late March or early

> April, so is it early April you are aiming at? It is now February,

> so that is but two months hence. Considering it's already taken the

> committee over eight months since the last Council meeting to

> produce its initial draft, do you really think two months is

> sufficient to gather feedback and publish subsequent drafts, also

> requiring feedback?

>

> Your response does seem rather vague. It says there has been

> progress, but to the best of my knowledge no one outside the

> committee has seen any evidence of any since the Southsea meeting

> over eight months ago. You had promised more transparency and

> openness, so can we please have some sort of interim description of

> precisely what *has* transpired in those eight months? And a new

> date by which you intend to publish the first draft seeking initial

> comments (I'm sure doing a good job will require multiple

> iterations), as your initial promise of end of 2016 is now long

> past?

While Dave Richards kindly provided an explanation of what's going on with the CCCBR web site, I don't think I've seen any responses to my other queries, above.

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> The MC had a Skype meeting tonight, rejoice! No-one objecting to

> change. Tim and Graham should be getting their invitations to join

> us soon - as consultant members initially. Another meeting scheduled

> for a fortnight's time.

So, in addition to agreeing to invite two further people to join the committee (which invitations I trust have now been received?), and scheduling another meeting, what else transpired at that meeting? The two weeks between the meetings will be about 20% of the time available to get some real work done before the self-imposed deadline of April. Will a draft document of some proposed changes be discussed then, with the expectation of quickly handing it out to a wider community to ensure sufficient time to review and update it before it is submitted as a final motion to be acted on by the Council (which seems to be what Peter's letter implied was the committee's plan)? Were any decisions taken on how to more clearly communicate with the rest of the world? In particular, communicate the progress Peter assured us had happened, but did not describe? Was a new date agreed to replace the one that was missed six weeks ago? Any progress on bringing the "committee's own" method collections back into being something the committee can itself make contributions to, and to ensure they cannot taken offline if someone else pitches a hissy fit, which I believe is a high priority issue for the committee's newest member, Mark? Any discussion of when and how to start in on the creation of an extension tool, which I believe is also something Mark cares about? Anything else?

​​

-- 

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

"The reward for conformity was that everyone liked you but yourself."

                                            -- Rita Mae Brown, _Bingo_

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently messages to the CCCBR email lists are not being delivered

...

> planned switchover to the new site on Monday 13th February.

I note that the relevant page of the "new" site still says the meeting "will be held" sixteen months ago. And that it still invites people to correspond with the committee using the address that doesn't work.

Perhaps these should be fixed before Monday?

-- 

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

"Menander died, drowned, while swimming, or failing to, at Piraeus."

        -- Stuart Kelly, _The Book of Lost Books_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFVrgd-Qjc2LRczHG7XO...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> I note that the relevant page of the "new" site still says the meeting
> "will be held" sixteen months ago. And that it still invites people to
> correspond with the committee using the address that doesn't work.

The new site was populated with information from the old site, so hardly
surprising to find the same content.

> Perhaps these should be fixed before Monday?

What would you prefer Peter to spend his (obviously limited) effort on?
Getting himself up to speed with the process of how to edit the new website
and so he can delete some information that is unlikely to mislead anyone,
or getting down to the things that really matter, which you and everyone
else think he ought to be doing?

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:13 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> What would you prefer Peter to spend his (obviously limited) effort on?

The committee has seven members (nine, if you count Tim and Graham, assuming they have now joined as "consultants"). Two of whom are also on the ICT committee, and I presume already have access to the new site and an understanding of how it works. Why does everything have to fall onto Peter's* shoulders? You, yourself, were arguing just yesterday for the value of a committee over individuals. This seems an eminently delegate-able, small job.

In fact, if someone would care to give me administrative access to the new site I'd be happy to update the Methods Committee's page myself for them. I promise not to abuse said access..

If that's just a step too far, I'd also be perfectly happy to mail someone my suggested, corrected text for them to upload instead. Unless I'm missing something, it really is neither hard nor time consuming to at least improve things (perfect I understand can be much harder, but a little improvement should be easy), and it's been hanging over the committee's heads for sixteen months with no action at all.

All that said, yes, you're absolutely right, I'd much prefer the committee got on with its real job. Part of which is communicating, as they've promised to do. It was Peter who said, when I asked, that he would communicate using the web site. Unfortunately, I've yet to see any evidence that getting on with its real job is happening, which is largely why I've been so strident the last few weeks, since Richard's letter in the RW. Certainly, sitting quietly on my thumbs the last few months nothing has happened, so I'm trying a different approach. Though, perhaps, you're right, I should just shut up. If the mail traffic is anything to judge by, no one else seems as frustrated as I am by the status quo, so perhaps I'm Just Wrong, as I so often am. And I could make better use, myself, of the time I'm spending whining. I'll think further on that.

> delete some information that is unlikely to mislead anyone,

Actually, the dead email address did mislead me, I suspect repeatedly (not understanding for how long that address has been dead, I don't know how many earlier messages I may have inadvertently launched into the abyss).

* In fact, half of what I suggest definitely shouldn't be Peter's responsibility: the ICT committee should take charge of making sure none of the broken email addresses appear on the new site.

-- 

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

"When you look into the abyss, it's not supposed to

wave back."               -- Terry Pratchett, _Thief of Time_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> So, in addition to agreeing to invite two further people to join the
> committee (which invitations I trust have now been received?), and
> scheduling another meeting, what else transpired at that meeting?

Sorry, I did mean to say a bit more about this. We had a good
discussion. Peter does indeed have a draft doc of proposed changes,
which has been kicking around for some time now, and all the things
listed in it are pretty sensible, and match what we've discussed on this
forum. His list includes suggestions for making the method
classification system more reactive, in particular so that peals in new
systems can be immediately "recognized".

However I made the point that very slowly and incrementally implementing
thing by revising the existing "Decisions" wasn't going to go down very
well. We agreed the following steps:

1. For this year's CC AGM, focus on a small number of changes to the
current Decisions, intended to be their last revision. In particular
allowing methods false in the plain course, which is on Peter's list,
would do a lot to get rid of the current "block" classification. I think
we are all agreed that needs to happen urgently.

2. Also at this year's AGM, put forward a change to the MC's TOR, as
I've mentioned.

3. Also tell the AGM that we propose to replace the current Decisions on
Methods with a brand-new draft, hopefully based on Tim's work (and this
list's, of course).

4. Bring Tim and Graham on, and start work on point (3) - we don't have
to wait for the AGM for this.

5. Following the TOR change, look at what needs doing with the IT
provision for the method libraries.

Also - don't go quiet Don, keep shouting! It does help having people
making a noise. Understand however that I am on your side and am
attempting to make things happen. I'm not sure I'm particularly good at
this, but I'm giving it my best shot.

MBD

[Mark Davies]

Oh yes - one more thing, we've set up a Slack account to record minutes
of MC meetings and store resources we're working on. It was agreed that
we'd give other interested parties access to this so they could see what
we were up to more easily.

Hopefully this will work out well. I've not used Slack myself before
though, so can't vouch for how good it is.

MBD

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Sorry, I did mean to say a bit more about this. We had a good discussion. Peter does indeed have a draft doc of proposed changes, which has been kicking around for some time now, and all the things listed in it are pretty sensible, and match what we've discussed on this forum. His list includes suggestions for making the method classification system more reactive, in particular so that peals in new systems can be immediately "recognized".

>

> However I made the point that very slowly and incrementally implementing thing by revising the existing "Decisions" wasn't going to go down very well. We agreed the following steps:

>

> 1. For this year's CC AGM, focus on a small number of changes to the current Decisions, intended to be their last revision. In particular allowing methods false in the plain course, which is on Peter's list, would do a lot to get rid of the current "block" classification. I think we are all agreed that needs to happen urgently.

>

> 2. Also at this year's AGM, put forward a change to the MC's TOR, as I've mentioned.

>

> 3. Also tell the AGM that we propose to replace the current Decisions on Methods with a brand-new draft, hopefully based on Tim's work (and this list's, of course).

>

> 4. Bring Tim and Graham on, and start work on point (3) - we don't have to wait for the AGM for this.

>

> 5. Following the TOR change, look at what needs doing with the IT provision for the method libraries.

This is all excellent news, thank you!

Responding in more detail to some of these points, and a further point implicit in all this:

> Peter does indeed have a draft doc of proposed changes, which has

> been kicking around for some time now, and all the things listed in

> it are pretty sensible

Why are we just hearing about this now? Didn't the committee commit to being more open and transparent? Can you please forward this document to us? I can't imagine any reason to keep it secret. I would hope you would want comments on it, too, but even if you don't it will cost you nothing to receive them and ignore them, so that shouldn't be burdensome. If you send it around with a disclaimer that it is all still very preliminary, I'm sure we will all understand that. It really would be delightful to actually see some sort of progress (your message certainly helps us to believe that there has been some, but we've still not had the opportunity to actually see any with our own eyes).

> 1. focus on a small number of changes to the

> current Decisions, intended to be their last revision. In particular

> allowing methods false in the plain course, which is on Peter's

> list, would do a lot to get rid of the current "block"

> classification. I think we are all agreed that needs to happen

> urgently.

So, if that is adopted, is the only remaining purpose of non-method blocks methods with a single lead plain course? I assert that is still a problem, as I can see no reason why, if you're going to ring such things, you need to be prohibited from using half-lead calls in them. Nor why they, and they alone, cannot be named by quarter peal ringers. Anyway, it's nice to know you all now, finally, acknowledge that non-method blocks were a Bad Idea.

> For this year's CC AGM, focus on a small number of changes to the

> current Decisions,

I trust these *will* be distributed in time for comments by folks not on the commitee, with sufficient time that they can be revised before being finalized? The Spring It All On Them Only When It's Too Late To Respond To Their Comments mentality has long been a source of problems. For example, I would hope that had that unhelpful procedure not been followed a few years ago there would never have been the non-method block debacle needing to be unwound.

Finally, the implicit point: why did I have to beg and scream to get this? Why hasn't the committee been publishing this information? I would suggest ringing-theory would be a great place to send a brief mail message periodically. It really should be a push activity, not a pull.

-- 

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

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news."

       -- A J Liebling, _The New Yorker_, 7 April 1956

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Oh yes - one more thing, we've set up a Slack account to record

> minutes of MC meetings and store resources we're working on. It was

> agreed that we'd give other interested parties access to this so

> they could see what we were up to more easily.

To the limited extent I understand Slack, I believe at your end you need to add our addresses to your team for us to look at this stuff, and supply us with the subdomain of slack.com to look for it in.

If I'm right about this, please

a) add d...@ringing.org to the team

and

b) tell us the appropriate subdomain.

Thanks!

-- 

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

"I push the thought aside. It comes back. Some thoughts have glue

on them." -- Peter Høeg, _Frøken Smillas fornemmelse for sne_,

             tr Tina Nunnally

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> Why are we just hearing about this now? Didn't the committee commit to
> being more open and transparent? Can you please forward this document to
> us? I can't imagine any reason to keep it secret.

I think it came out of that "public consultation" a year or so back but
to be honest I wasn't following developments very closely back then so
maybe it is newer. Anyway, attached. Comments welcome. As I said, I am
pressing for most of the contents to be implemented using Tim's "clean
slate" approach.

> So, if that is adopted, is the only remaining purpose of non-method
> blocks methods with a single lead plain course?

Yes, probably. I think the idea of a "block", i.e. a bit of a
composition that a composer can say isn't a method, is still valid,
however what we don't want is stuff that looks like a method being
forced into the block category.

How many single-lead plain courses have been rung as blocks to date? I'm
guessing not many. We could bring them into the fold at the next
meeting, but I worry that (unlike false methods) there are some
technical intricacies that could derail things (like no hunt and working
bells, so how do you classify a TD path?).

Assuming we can reclassify most of the current blocks by relaxing the
plain-course-false rule, I was thinking that was sufficient for now.
Then we'll "Tim it".

> Anyway, it's nice to know you all now, finally, acknowledge that
> non-method blocks were a Bad Idea.

Hey! I was in there denouncing them well before you!

There is at least one other member on the MC who joined specifically
because he didn't like this blocks stuff, and wanted it changed. I don't
think there's anyone one the committee who thinks the current
implementation is a good idea (if there is they kept quiet last weekend).

> I trust these *will* be distributed in time for comments by folks not on
> the commitee, with sufficient time that they can be revised before being
> finalized?

Well I hope so. I'll continue to try to push it along.

> Finally, the implicit point: why did I have to beg and scream to get
> this? Why hasn't the committee been publishing this information? I would
> suggest ringing-theory would be a great place to send a brief mail
> message periodically. It really should be a push activity, not a pull.

Yes well I think I'm the only rabid communicator on the MC, and I've
been finishing G&B peals, helping Cheltenham Minster with their monster
restoration appeal, struggling with deadline and customers at work,
trying to look after three children, as well as attempt to get some
sleep now and then. I'm bloody knackered already this year!

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> I think it came out of that "public consultation" a year or so back

> but to be honest I wasn't following developments very closely back

> then so maybe it is newer. Anyway, attached. Comments welcome.

Oh, my, this is encouraging. I don't think I've seen it before (if I have and forgot my profound apologies).

After a first rush through it my impression is I am in favor of everything proposed. And, while I am also in favor of most of the things deferred for the future, I fully understand the desire to defer them; they are more complicated or more contentious.

I do, though, suggest that you not refer to it as the "null change", but rather as the "identity change". For reasons I don't fully grok "null" seems to trigger some sort of visceral repugnance in many ringers, unrelated to its reality.

One, further meta-suggestion: it would be prudent to include a date at the head of any such documents. Even if it seems like it adds no value now, it will save pain at some point in the future.

> How many single-lead plain courses have been rung as blocks to date?

I believe six, all minor, all in the same peal. Plus whatever, if anything, may have rung before they became legal and thus don't show up in Tony's records.

> Yes, probably. I think the idea of a "block", i.e. a bit of a

> composition that a composer can say isn't a method, is still valid,

If so, please at least be sure it does not acquire weird, second-class citizenship. For example, today non-method blocks cannot have half-lead calls, are not counted in spliced, and cannot be named in quarter peals. There are probably some other differences I don't now recall. Such arbitrary restrictions make no sense.

That said, though, I believe the document you forwarded *does* recommend allowing single lead course methods.

> I'll continue to try to push it along.

Please do. I think it is vitally important that the precise wording be sent out, comments solicited, and, if appropriate, acted on, before a submission is made for the Council to vote on. Which process really does deserve more than one iteration. There is just too much that can go wrong when turning good intentions into precise rules/definitions/whatever. Indeed, many of the things being fixed were caused by not following such a process.

> Yes well I think I'm the only rabid communicator on the MC,

Rabid is not necessary. If it is difficult for you to do, I would think it should not be difficult to find someone else among nine people who could jot down a few paragraphs fortnightly and send them off. If even that is felt onerous, the job could be delegated to a different victim each fortnight.

Anyway, many thanks again for forwarding this. It is most encouraging, though much work remains to be done turning it into something the Council can vote on.

-- 

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

"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could

produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the

Internet, we know that is not true."

          -- Robert Wilensky, speech at a conference, 1996

[Don Morrison]

One further comment. I believe the document says nothing about what happens to existing non-method blocks that become methods. I hope the bands that first rung them are consulted. For example, I suspect the band that rang Not A Block Major would probably prefer to have it renamed Normandy Surprise Major (though, of course, I can't say for sure).

-- 

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

"There are no beginnings, not even to stories. There are only

places where you make an entrance into someone else's life and

either stay or turn and go away."

       -- Timothy Findley, who turned and went away 20 June 2002

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

I think it came out of that "public consultation" a year or so back but to be honest I wasn't following developments very closely back then so maybe it is newer. Anyway, attached. Comments welcome. As I said, I am pressing for most of the contents to be implemented using Tim's "clean slate" approach.

Mark -- many thanks for circulating.  I haven't seen this before, so assume it's a newer document.  I've pasted in the document's proposals and given my comments below.  I think the proposals are nearly all good, but I'm skeptical they can all be properly implemented this May.  If we don't allow enough time for full consideration and review, there's a big risk of introducing flaws.  My suggestion would be to focus this year on the changes needed to eliminate non-method blocks (so this category doesn't grow for another year), and also make a few other "easy" changes, such as relaxing the requirement for bells to be heard outside the tower.  This would then be the last patching of the current Decisions, and we aim to adopt a new set built from the ground up in 2018.

 

Yes, probably. I think the idea of a "block", i.e. a bit of a composition that a composer can say isn't a method, is still valid, however what we don't want is stuff that looks like a method being forced into the block category.

Not sure about this.  The subgroup's doc defined a method as any sequence of changes -- we didn't see a need for a separate category for certain sequences.  I can't think of a sequence of changes that would be a candidate for separate treatment -- are there examples?

Peals

Change A.   Allow peals to be rung in a wider range of venues:

• Relax the requirement for bells to be heard outside the tower

Agreed.

• Allow peals on simulators (but still requiring human ringers)

Agreed, but include that tower simulators are rung full circle-style, and handbell simulators are rung in alternating up-strokes and down-strokes

• Allow peals on 3 bells

I would make it 2 bells, as 2 is the minimum needed to create a change.  3 is an arbitrary cut-off and we're trying to avoid things that are arbitrary.  Obviously 2 bell peals are silly, but I don't think they should be barred.  (Someone even rang a 1-bell 'peal' - see here).

Change B.  Allow a wider range of types of peal: 

• Allow peals with multiple cover bells 

Agreed.

• Allow peals with multiple cover bells, not necessarily ringing in order (for example Doubles with 7,6,8 cover).

Agreed.

• Allow peals that include stages more than 1 apart, e.g. Triples and Caters

Agreed, but truth should be assessed at the highest stage.  Needs truth to be defined in the Decisions.

• Allow peals with a bell that rings continuously at the beginning of each row, without taking part in the changes (the opposite to a traditional cover bell)

Agreed.  Should be introduced into the Decisions in a generic manner -- all fixed cover bells are excluded from the assessment of truth.

• Allow peals with multiple bells that ring continuously at the beginning of each row (without taking part in the changes

Agreed, with same comment as above.

Change C.  Relax the conditions on how a peal is performed (or turn them into Guidelines)

• Remove the requirement that “Any shift or error in ringing shall be corrected immediately.” 

Agreed, but should be replaced with something suitable.

• Remove the requirement that says “No error in calling shall be corrected later than during the change at which the call or change of method … would properly take effect.” 

Agreed, but should be replaced with something suitable.

• Allow relay peal ringing (ringers handing over to other ringers during the course of the peal)

• Relax the ban on external assistance (e.g. non-ringing conductors and visual aids) in peals 

Both of the above fall into the unresolved category of whether there should be standard and non-standard performances, or whether everything is a peal, and disclosures are made when various norms aren't followed.

Methods

Change A. Widen the definition of a Method:

• Allow methods that are false in their plain course. It has been noted that it is anomalous that you can ring the 48-row round block of Oxford Treble Bob Minimus in a peal, but cannot describe it as Oxford Treble Bob Minimus.

Agreed.

• Allow methods that have single-lead plain courses. We might want to add a safeguard to avoid people giving a new name to the multi-lead plain course of an existing method.

Agreed.  I don't think there's a need for such a safeguard.  The r-t debate and polls thought lead indivisibility shouldn't be a requirement.  One of the most commonly rung methods (Plain Hunt) has a one-lead course, and I would like to see this in the method library, in addition to Original.

   The effect of this changes would be that any fixed length block of rows, beginning and ending in rounds and not containing jump changes, would constitute a method.

Not quite because a method involving the identity change couldn't be named without other changes (which I think should be made so that the above statement is correct).  

Change B. Alternative names for methods

• Make provision for a method to have alternative names, to resolve issues where multiple names have been used. Some safeguards would be needed to make sure that this isn’t abused.

I don't think there's a need for alternative names.  There should be a current name, and then a list of other names that have been used historically where applicable.

Change C. Disentangle Peals and Methods.  

• Allow peals that conform to the other requirements for Peals but which can’t be described using conventional methods, provided that the composition of the changes rung is provided in an unambiguous fashion

I assume this refers to allowing dynamic methods (Dixonoids), in which case agree.

• Allow the naming of new methods in non-compliant peals

Depends on the outcome of the last point above in the Peals section.  The subgroup doc called for new methods to be named in a standard performance, not a non-standard one.

Reporting and Records

Change A. Record Lengths

• Permit long lengths not meeting the additional requirements for record peals to be treated as “unofficial records” i.e. they are still peals, but are not official (CC-recognised) Record Lengths.

Agree they should be recognized as peals.  I'm probably not in favor of "unofficial record" being a defined term or category -- the peal report can speak for itself.

• Remove the requirement for interested 3rd parties to be able to listen to handbell record lengths > 10,000 changes

I probably disagree with this.  I think it's a nice tradition in ringing that you have the option of being able to witness any record being broken.

Change B. Reporting via Electronic Media

• Allow notification of Record Lengths via BellBoard

Agreed.

• Allow publication of new methods via BellBoard as well as via The Ringing World 

Agreed.  The whole workflow of new method naming should be revisited.

• Remove the implicit requirement that peals be published in The Ringing World and allow electronic reporting as an alternative

Agree in principle. but would want to understand how it would be determined what gets published in the RW.

Change C. Reporting Multi-method peals

• Allow other forms of splicing to be called Spliced

Agreed -- anything involving more than one method should be called spliced.

• Tidy up the definition of Spliced (it is a bit convoluted at present).

Agreed -- as above.

• Relax the requirement to list all the methods, changes of method etc. rung in a peal of Spliced, provided that the peal report includes a non-ambiguous reference to the composition that was used.

Agreed.

Recognition

We have the following options:

1. “All or Nothing” system as today. With this option, there’s a fixed set of requirements and a peal is either compliant or non-compliant. There is no provision for reclassifying a non-compliant peal as compliant.

2. “Two-tier”. Have a fixed set of requirements, but have a second tier for peals that don’t strictly comply with them with a name that’s more benign than “non-compliant”. We would need some way to exclude things from the second tier that are obvious hoaxes, and things that fail some kind of “reasonableness” test (e.g. a peal consisting of just one change).

3. “Guidelines”. State that the requirements on peals are guidelines, and remove the concept of compliance or non-compliance.  Leave it up to people who keep records to decide whether they want to include a particular peal or not.

4.  “Recognition”. Have a fixed set of requirements and a process whereby a non-compliant peal could nevertheless be classified as compliant. We had a version of this prior to 2002, when the CC voted on whether to accept such peals or not.

5. “Reactive”. Have a process in place to allow the requirements on peals to be adjusted in response to a non-compliant peal and have the changed requirements act retrospectively on that peal

This area needs some more debate.  At the moment my preference is for there to be standard and non-standard performances (i.e.#2), with it made clear there is no intention to denigrate any performance that is non-standard.  There should also be a case by case process to recognize performances as standard (i.e.#4), e.g. if the tenor strap fell off half-way through.  And updated requirements for standard performances should also be able to apply retrospectively (i.e. #5).

[Mark Davies]

On 10/02/2017 00:45, Don Morrison wrote:
> Rabid is not necessary. If it is difficult for you to do, I would think
> it should not be difficult to find someone else among nine people who
> could jot down a few paragraphs fortnightly and send them off. If even
> that is felt onerous, the job could be delegated to a different victim
> each fortnight.

You misunderstand me - I think I'm the only person likely to be
communicating regularly, on this forum at least. The others are either
not so addicted to email, or are even busier than me.

Having said that I have cleared the G&B peals and hopefully the bulk of
my work with the Cheltenham restoration project tonight. I intend to
focus on this Methods Committee stuff from now on.

[Mark Davies]

On 10/02/2017 00:51, Don Morrison wrote:
> One further comment. I believe the document says nothing about what
> happens to existing non-method blocks that become methods. I hope the
> bands that first rung them are consulted. For example, I suspect the
> band that rang Not A Block Major would probably prefer to have it
> renamed Normandy Surprise Major (though, of course, I can't say for sure).

Yes we will definitely have to consider that. Of course, the sooner we
get it done, the better.

On 10/02/2017 23:51, Tim Barnes wrote:
> My suggestion would be to focus this year on
> the changes needed to eliminate non-method blocks (so this category
> doesn't grow for another year), and also make a few other "easy"
> changes, such as relaxing the requirement for bells to be heard
> outside the tower. This would then be the last patching of the
> current Decisions, and we aim to adopt a new set built from the
> ground up in 2018.

Yes, that's what I was intending to push for. Not sure about the tower
audibility criterion actually - anything that could cause contention in
the meeting and delay or obstruct the blocks part is in my view best
left for this year. The only urgency to my mind is the blocks.

> Not sure about this. The subgroup's doc defined a method as any
> sequence of changes -- we didn't see a need for a separate category for
> certain sequences. I can't think of a sequence of changes that would be
> a candidate for separate treatment -- are there examples?

This is one to discuss at a later date, for sure. I have a strong memory
of certain composers wanting to add things into their compositions which
they didn't view as methods. Perhaps we have moved passed that, but it
certainly has some appeal. The trouble arose from making it mandatory -
these blocks of changes *had* to be blocks, and couldn't be viewed as
methods.

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the proposals are nearly all good, but I'm skeptical they

> can all be properly implemented this May. If we don't allow enough

> time for full consideration and review, there's a big risk of

> introducing flaws. My suggestion would be to focus this year on the

> changes needed to eliminate non-method blocks (so this category

> doesn't grow for another year), and also make a few other "easy"

> changes, such as relaxing the requirement for bells to be heard

> outside the tower.

On reflection, I think you are clearly correct. For example, as you have rightly pointed out, some of these changes require a more precise definition of "truth", or choice of particular shades thereof, and are almost certain to be gotten wrong if tackled hastily. In fact, it probably all gets even more complicated with all these generalizations of cover bells, when you factor in peals at multiple stages. That has caused no end of pain in other contexts.

> Not sure about this. The subgroup's doc defined a method as any

> sequence of changes -- we didn't see a need for a separate category

> for certain sequences. I can't think of a sequence of changes that

> would be a candidate for separate treatment -- are there examples?

I don't think there are if the current, badly imprecise, way non-method blocks are defined is retained, at least if it is taken to mean what I think it was intended to mean. Though perhaps there is a further generalization of blocks that can encompass, for example, Dixonoids, too. However, this is certainly not something that should be rushed.

-- 

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

"Philosophers seriously discuss the possibility that the universe is

some kind of simulation, and in one version of that scenario our

creator is a computer programmer from a very advanced...extrauniversal

civilization. (And certainly if the human predicament is the creation

of an adolescent hacker, that would explain a lot.)

                                  -- Robert Wright, _The Evolution of God_

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

Yes, that's what I was intending to push for. Not sure about the tower audibility criterion actually - anything that could cause contention in the meeting and delay or obstruct the blocks part is in my view best left for this year. The only urgency to my mind is the blocks.

Sounds good.  No objection from me if the preference is just to focus this year on addressing non-method blocks.

Any thoughts on next steps from here?  The document you circulated appears intended for a wider-ranging consultation.  If the intention is to focus on blocks this year, perhaps this document shouldn't go out until after May.  It might make sense for the MC to put out a communication outlining the 2-year plan (amend current decisions this year to address non-method blocks, and then introduce a brand new set of decisions in 2018).

Is there a view that there should be a consultation on non-method blocks first, or can the MC move straight to proposing revised language to address blocks?  My sense is that we've moved on to the point where blocks don't need to be retained in any form, but I could be wrong on this.

If the latter, it would be ideal to get proposed revised language out as soon as possible to give time for review (by the end of this month would be ideal).  I'd suggest circulating to this group first, then to r-t, and then to all the email lists / FB groups (plus publish in the RW, on various websites, etc).  Is Peter or anyone else on the MC working on drafting language?  Would you like any help with this?

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEeYX-CENS6mce=+ypEN+XFg8k2rft5...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:


> * Permit long lengths not meeting the additional requirements for record
> peals to be treated as "unofficial records" ...

> I'm probably not in favor of "unofficial record" being a defined term or
> category -- the peal report can speak for itself.

Yes, but we get stuck in a linguistic trap. A peal of length X was rung.
No other peal as long as X has been rung.

So what happened was definitely a record (in lay parlance).

It did not meet the criteria to be recognised as an (official) record.

So it is definitely not official.

Something that happened but was not official sound like an unofficial
something to the layman, whether or not there is an official definition of
what unofficial means.

> * Remove the requirement for interested 3rd parties to be able to listen

> to handbell record lengths > 10,000 changes

> I probably disagree with this. I think it's a nice tradition in ringing
> that you have the option of being able to witness any record being
> broken.

I'm with Tim, and it's more than a nice tradition. If (official) records
are broken there should be an opportunity to witness it. And that should
apply to tower bells too, whether inside or outside it should be possible
to witness the ringing.

[Derek Williams]

On 10/02/2017 23:51, Tim Barnes wrote: 

 > My suggestion would be to focus this year on 

 > the changes needed to eliminate non-method blocks (so this category 
 > doesn't grow for another year), and also make a few other "easy" 
 > changes, such as relaxing the requirement for bells to be heard 

 > outside the tower.  This would then be the last patching of the 
 > current Decisions, and we aim to adopt a new set built from the 
 > ground up in 2018. 

Yes, that's what I was intending to push for. Not sure about the tower 
audibility criterion actually - anything that could cause contention in 
the meeting and delay or obstruct the blocks part is in my view best 
left for this year. The only urgency to my mind is the blocks.

 

On the other hand there may be towers and ringers who might think other suggested changes are as important as eliminating non-method blocks. For us at Wellington Cathedral, relaxing the requirement for bells to be heard outside the tower and allowing the use of simulated sound is as important as eliminating non-method blocks. Is publishing all the suggestions and seeing what the reaction is such a bad idea?

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

[Regarding updating the Methods Committee's rather out of date web page]

> This seems an eminently delegate-able, small job.

>

> In fact, if someone would care to give me administrative access to

> the new site I'd be happy to update the Methods Committee's page

> myself for them. I promise not to abuse said access.

>

> If that's just a step too far, I'd also be perfectly happy to mail

> someone my suggested, corrected text for them to upload instead.

I've had no replies to this offer of nearly two weeks ago, which still stands, but the text of the page is still dominated by the announcement of the upcoming meeting to be held in October 2015.

Curiously, the text of the page *has* been updated a little, coinciding with the launch of the new Council site, though the above has not been corrected. In fact, I think the new version is actually worse, at least from a "marketing" point of view, than the old: it now leads with a sentence describing the *history* of the committee. Not a good way to change the opiinos of those who view the Council and committee as rather backward-looking. I'm particularly amused that the very first thing we learn about the committee is that it was "formed as the Legitimate Methods Committee in 1899" -- it's as if Enoch were bragging about his parentage.

-- 

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

"Man has a tropism for order....The physical world has a tropism for

disorder, entropy....Every order has within it the germ of its

destruction. All order is doomed, yet the battle is worth while.

    -- Nathanael West, _Miss Lonelyhearts_

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Tim and Graham should be getting their invitations to join us soon -

> as consultant members initially.

I should have mentioned this weeks ago, but it only just occurred to me:

I understand why Tim is a "consultant" until May, since he's not yet a member of the Council. But why have you not co-opted Graham as a fully-fledged member of the committee? Such co-option only lasts until May, but with luck he'll get elected to a full three year term then. There seems no reason for relegating him to consultant status. Of course, such titles really don't matter much: it's who does how much work that really matters, but it still seems like The Right Thing to do.

-- 

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

"I was brought up in the violin factory, and, at times, when I had a

fight with my brothers and sisters, we would hit one another with

violins."

           -- Shinichi Suzuki, _Nurtured by Love_, tr Waltraud Susuzki

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFXNZjxgUSAFJmb32kyH+MsGCQZPwePK=-MzBgim...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> why have you not co-opted Graham as a fully-fledged member of the
> committee?

Graham will become a Council member in May. ODG elects its Council members
a year ahead of when the post is taken up for the practical reason that it
would be unreasonable to expect someone to attend a Council meeting at a
few weeks notice.

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:49 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

In article

<CAO9hiFXNZjxgUSAFJmb32kyH+MsGCQZPwePK=-MzBgim...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> Graham will become a Council member in May. 

I'm sorry. I looked in the membership list on the Council's web site and saw his name there, but didn't bother to actually read the entry any further; it does clearly state that he will not actually be a member until May. Sorry about that, my fault, all makes sense now.

-- 

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

"Science is everything we know how to explain to a computer,

and art is everything else."        -- Donald Knuth, during a lecture