Long overdue ... again

[Richard Smith]

I thought people on this list might like a sneak preview of
my letter in this week's RW.

SIR, – In May, the Central Council passed a motion “that the
Methods Committee shall, in consultation with other
interested parties, prepare revised Decisions that ...
address points that have been raised in the consultation
process to date. The Committee shall prepare a draft before
the end of 2016.” [RW p.462] Well, it’s now 2017, and if
such a draft has been produced, it has yet to be published.

Were it only a few weeks overdue, I would not be writing
this letter. Unfortunately, it is increasingly evident that
the Methods Committee cannot now deliver in time for a
meaningful period of discussion and feedback before the 2017
meeting, which was presumably the reason for requiring the
draft by the end of 2016.

The Method Committee’s last public consultation was in the
spring of 2015. The Southsea meeting clearly intended there
to be fresh consultation on this process as, in the
discussion of the motion, “Tony Furnivall urged the Methods
Committee to conduct the consultation in as transparent and
public manner as possible – including the use of the Ringing
Theory email discussion list ... Peter [Niblett, Chairman of
the Methods Committee] responded to Tony that he was aware
of the need to do this.” [RW p752]

Given that the motion required the draft to “address points
that have been raised in the consultation process to date”,
one would have expected the consultation to have taken place
earlier in 2016. So where has this “transparent and public”
consultation been? Certainly not on the Ringing Theory
mailing list, nor in The Ringing World.

Looking at the Methods Committee website, I found an
invitation to an open meeting on 11th October. Could I have
missed the consultation? I hoped not: as an interested
party, I wanted to have my say. But, no, this was the
meeting which happened in 2015 [see RW 2015, p.1030] as a
result of the Methods Committee’s last botched attempt to
review the Decisions – the review whose results were
published mere days before the Hull meeting, and were widely
dismissed as minimal and contrary to the intended spirit of
reform. It was withdrawn, and its author resigned from the
Methods Committee. Could history be about to repeat itself?

RICHARD A. SMITH
Cambridge

[Philip Earis]

I'm glad to see this (and it's saved me the job of having to write it myself), but at the beginning I think it's important to stress it was May *2014* that the Methods Committee were mandated to do something.  Your letter just says "May" - did you accidentally miss out 2014?  See the minutes, item 23 at http://www.methods.org.uk//archive/ccm2014.htm @

"(b) John Couperthwaite recalled the earlier discussion on Motion D and the strong groundswell of opinion, both inside and outside the Council, that it was time for a fundamental review of the relevant Decisions. He thought that it would be wrong to be prescriptive about exactly what should be done at this early stage and formally proposed that:

• The Methods Committee should begin work on consultation about, and on developing the principles and fundamental requirements of, a possible new or revised set of Decisions concerning Peal Ringing, Methods and Calls and, in the first instance, should report on progress to the Administrative Committee at its next regular meeting. That the Administrative Committee should then decide on the next steps to be taken and that a report on progress be made to the next Council meeting, either in the next Administrative Committee report to Council or in the next Methods Committee report to Council, as deemed appropriate.

Fred Bone seconded the proposal. Tony Smith stated that the proposal would cause a lot of work and result in very little change; the complexities of the Decisions were there for a purpose. John Harrison commented that the proposal did not go far enough and that a review should not be delegated to the Methods Committee. The proposal was carried by majority"

[Richard Smith]

Philip Earis wrote:

> I'm glad to see this (and it's saved me the job of having to write it
> myself), but at the beginning I think it's important to stress it was May
> *2014* that the Methods Committee were mandated to do something. Your
> letter just says "May" - did you accidentally miss out 2014? See the
> minutes, item 23 at http://www.methods.org.uk//archive/ccm2014.htm @

No, I didn't miss out "2016" as the motion I quoted was the
one passed at Southsea last year. On reflection I should
perhaps have mentioned the 2014 motion too, but I think it
was implicit in the last paragraph that reform had
previously been promised for the 2015 meeting. Anyway, the
letter has been printed now, so it's too late to change it.

RAS

[Mark Davies]

Good letter Richard. I have sent it on to the Methods Committee with a
stern call to try and stir them into action. I will let this list know
what feedback I get from them.

Are you Richard (or anyone else on this list) prepared to join me on the
MC to help push this through?

MBD

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

[Tim Barnes]

Yes, good letter.  It's quite amazing that the MC can ignore CC motions directed at it year after year, seemingly without repercussion.  Exhibit A of CC dysfunction.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

Are you Richard (or anyone else on this list) prepared to join me on the MC to help push this through?

Yes in principle, though I'd need to get on the CC first.  I missed the boat for the NAG for 2017.  Will aim for 2018.

 

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes in principle, though I'd need to get on the CC first. I missed

> the boat for the NAG for 2017. Will aim for 2018.

That may be difficult, unless you're aware of someone planning to step down mid-term: I believe we don't elect NAGCR CC reps again until the fall of 2019 (for the Council meeting in 2020). Though maybe I'm behind the times and things have changed.

-- 

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

"Though we know so much more about Milton than about Shakespeare, and

so much must be recorded to picture him, we still do not know enough

to judge him--if this is possible of any man."

      -- Will and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Louis XIV_

[David Richards]

Hi Tim,

On 18 January 2017 at 21:30, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, good letter.  It's quite amazing that the MC can ignore CC motions directed at it year after year, seemingly without repercussion.  Exhibit A of CC dysfunction.

It's an interesting suggestion - almost sounds like there should be some direct benefit to being a member of the CC such that there could be a meaningful sanction if you are found negligent.

I say this as someone with serial good intentions yet remarkably little ability to deliver on most of them.

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

Are you Richard (or anyone else on this list) prepared to join me on the MC to help push this through?

Yes in principle, though I'd need to get on the CC first.  I missed the boat for the NAG for 2017.  Will aim for 2018.

There's no need to get bogged down like this.

Committees are able to co-opt people as they see fit (who can provide input to the committees without any process of election). The council can also elect up to 18 additional members of which I believe 8 places are currently taken. Additional members require two nominations plus approval from the council. I would be very happy to propose you to join the council as an additional member and finding a seconder won't be tricky. The deadline for nominations is in a few weeks.

From this year constraints on membership numbers on committees will be removed so there's no question of the methods committee running out of space.

In short, if you would like to join the council, then that can be achieved by one of those routes. There's a slight risk of the council not voting for you as an additional member, but I've never seen an application voted down yet.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:33 AM, David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's an interesting suggestion - almost sounds like there should be some direct benefit to being a member of the CC such that there could be a meaningful sanction if you are found negligent.

I say this as someone with serial good intentions yet remarkably little ability to deliver on most of them.

Rather than sanction, I would think the CC leadership should be gently suggesting to committee chairs whose committees aren't delivering that they consider stepping aside to make way for others who may be able to achieve more.  It undermines an organization's credibility when motions are routinely ignored and due dates missed without explanation.  The MC had a due date (from a motion they proposed themselves) of 31/12/16 for preparing a draft.  It would only have taken a few minutes for the MC to put something out in December saying, sorry, we're not going to make Dec 31st, but we now aim to produce the draft by [new date].  Without this, all you see from the outside is ineffectiveness in the central organization.

Committees are able to co-opt people as they see fit (who can provide input to the committees without any process of election).

I know, and I let Peter know this subgroup would be pleased to assist the MC in the review of the decisions in any way he saw fit.  This wasn't taken up, and I'm not aware the MC co-opted any others to help them, even knowing their own lack of bandwidth.  I'm sure the subgroup's offer of assistance is still open!  (As is mine individually.)

The council can also elect up to 18 additional members of which I believe 8 places are currently taken. Additional members require two nominations plus approval from the council. I would be very happy to propose you to join the council as an additional member and finding a seconder won't be tricky. The deadline for nominations is in a few weeks.

From this year constraints on membership numbers on committees will be removed so there's no question of the methods committee running out of space.

In short, if you would like to join the council, then that can be achieved by one of those routes. There's a slight risk of the council not voting for you as an additional member, but I've never seen an application voted down yet.

Ok, thanks.  I would be pleased to stand as an additional member and help on the decisions review (and also interested in the broader work of reform of the CC).  (Don is right that the NAG elects CC reps every 3 years, not annually.)  Please let me know the next steps.

Regards

Tim

[David Richards]

On 19 January 2017 at 15:02, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rather than sanction, I would think the CC leadership should be gently suggesting to committee chairs whose committees aren't delivering that they consider stepping aside to make way for others who may be able to achieve more. 

Leaving aside the notion that the executive of the CC should be internally deposing people who they don't think are doing a good enough job (which seems like a minefield in itself), I'm sure you're aware that the council just doesn't have a queue of 'those who may be able to achieve more'.

It probably all strays into the area of CC reform, but at the moment I think that most of the committees are grateful for people who are willing to put themselves in the firing line. It probably underlines the total fallacy of trying to put technical committees together from people mainly representing territorial associations at a once-a-year meeting.

Committees are able to co-opt people as they see fit (who can provide input to the committees without any process of election).

I know, and I let Peter know this subgroup would be pleased to assist the MC in the review of the decisions in any way he saw fit.  This wasn't taken up, and I'm not aware the MC co-opted any others to help them, even knowing their own lack of bandwidth.  I'm sure the subgroup's offer of assistance is still open!  (As is mine individually.)

It's good to know an offer was made and sad that it wasn't taken up.

 

The council can also elect up to 18 additional members of which I believe 8 places are currently taken. Additional members require two nominations plus approval from the council. I would be very happy to propose you to join the council as an additional member and finding a seconder won't be tricky. The deadline for nominations is in a few weeks.

From this year constraints on membership numbers on committees will be removed so there's no question of the methods committee running out of space.

In short, if you would like to join the council, then that can be achieved by one of those routes. There's a slight risk of the council not voting for you as an additional member, but I've never seen an application voted down yet.

Ok, thanks.  I would be pleased to stand as an additional member and help on the decisions review (and also interested in the broader work of reform of the CC).  (Don is right that the NAG elects CC reps every 3 years, not annually.)  Please let me know the next steps.

That sounds great. I'll just check that my confidence in getting you on the ballot for additional members isn't misplaced and drop you a message off-list.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, David Richards <dad...@gmail.com> wrote:

Leaving aside the notion that the executive of the CC should be internally deposing people who they don't think are doing a good enough job (which seems like a minefield in itself),

 

Not a deposition but a gentle conversation appropriate to a volunteer organization.  Like a vicar managing out an ageing church warden who's stayed in the role too long.  If the leadership can't influence change in parts of an organization that aren't delivering, it's unlikely the organization will be successful.

... I'm sure you're aware that the council just doesn't have a queue of 'those who may be able to achieve more'.

It probably all strays into the area of CC reform, but at the moment I think that most of the committees are grateful for people who are willing to put themselves in the firing line.

Yes, into the area of reform.  It ought to be viewed as a privilege to serve on the CC, like it is to serve as an officer of the College Youths.  The privilege is the compensation for the work involved.  But it's not viewed that way by many because of the CC's poor reputation.  Hence a lack of people willing to serve, things get worse as a result, and soon you're in a downward spiral.  These are all old points, and no doubt a big part of the reason we now have CRAG.  In the case of the MC, I think there are clearly people available who could achieve more as chair than Peter has since May 2014, based on their past ability to deliver (SMC32, CAS, Complib, etc).

That sounds great. I'll just check that my confidence in getting you on the ballot for additional members isn't misplaced and drop you a message off-list.

Thanks.  Not meaning to be overly critical in these emails!

 

[Mark Davies]

Tim - it would be great to have you on the committee!

Believe me, I have been more useless than anyone in my first 9 months on
the MC. This is partly due to various upheavals in my life including
moving house and volunteer duties elsewhere, but I am ready to devote my
focus to it in 2017.

If Dave can get you on the committee, and perhaps we can strong-arm
Graham John too, I think we have a nucleus of people who can achieve
something.

[Tim Barnes]

Mark -- understood!  Hopefully things can start to happen in 2017.  I also have time this year to work on it.  If Dave can get me onto the CC / MC, then great, but if not, I'd be happy to be co-opted, and I imagine everyone on this list would be pleased to review drafts / provide feedback, etc.

There does seem to be a need for a new MC chair.  I know this is critical, but I think it's warranted -- you shouldn't be able to fail to deliver on CC motions as much as Peter has these past 2.5 years and still keep your position.

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/20969a72-5cfb-17c3-8e45-905beadc28ee%40snowtiger.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[pj...@cantab.net]

I fully agree. Three related points to add:

- That the Committee chair should step down is apparent, but this needn't be at all unpleasant. Peter is a nice chap, and surely he must realise he hasn't given / isn't giving / won't give the effort needed to the tasks he's been mandated to do. By him staying on it looks wilfully obstructive and just increases the chance of mutual ill-feeling down the line.

- I continue to be dismayed by the lack of communication from the MC more generally.  There's still been nothing at all about yet another missed (self-imposed) deadline...and no wider consultation or updates...how dysfunctional can things get?

- Whilst conscious that I'm speaking about friends here, it's also surprising (polite word for astonishing) how meek (polite word for spineless) the MC members are being. If they don't have confidence in Peter to deliver the mandated reform (and it's hard to see how anyone can, nearly 3 years on and with no progress or action) surely they should tell him they don't have confidence in his chairing and delivery. This would quickly force matters to a head.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "rt-rules-subgroup" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rt-rules-subgroup/nwZN0cej9mA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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%2B16xEcjgsFxfsm4MfJ%3DO23O6UbrwWHTnFp8n%3DvmWN%3D-qmnN5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Davies]

A response to some of Philip's points (all of which are quite valid):

> - I continue to be dismayed by the lack of communication from the MC
> more generally. There's still been nothing at all about yet another
> missed (self-imposed) deadline...and no wider consultation or
> updates...how dysfunctional can things get?

Yes, I know. Peter has drafted a reply to Richard's letter in the RW, so
hopefully you will see that soon. A bit of discussion has been stirred
up internally in the MC, which has to be good, because absolutely
nothing was going on before. Also I think there's an acceptance that the
current group is unable to move things on fast enough, and to that end
several of us (I hope a majority) are keen to get Graham and Tim on
board, either as full or associate members. I think the idea is this can
be done quite quickly.

I have stated that:

1. I think we should try and adopt Tim's document, or a slightly revised
version of it, as a replacement for the current Rules as soon as
possible, and drop any attempt to continue to revise the existing text.

2. We ought to have Graham and Tim on board.

3. We need a change of the terms of reference of the MC, so that it is
formally in charge of curating the method libraries.

4. We need to do develop a modern website and associated webservices for
the method libraries.

No-one has raised any serious objections to any of this (as yet) but
neither has any of it happened.

> - Whilst conscious that I'm speaking about friends here, it's also
> surprising (polite word for astonishing) how meek (polite word for
> spineless) the MC members are being. If they don't have confidence in
> Peter to deliver the mandated reform (and it's hard to see how anyone
> can, nearly 3 years on and with no progress or action) surely they
> should tell him they don't have confidence in his chairing and delivery.

Yes. This is one thing I do not like doing and am absolutely rubbish at.

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> several of us (I hope a majority) are keen to get Graham and Tim on

> board, either as full or associate members. I think the idea is this

> can be done quite quickly.

They don't have to be members of anything, and there's no reason it can't be done instantaneously: all you need to do is say "we want them to help us" and confirm that they want to do so, and away you go. There is no reason you can't start having substantive discussions including them tomorrow (which I suppose is "today", your time).

> 3. We need a change of the terms of reference of the MC, so that it

> is formally in charge of curating the method libraries.

While you're at it, I strongly believe the terms of reference should also be changed so that they don't say the Methods Committee's primary job is to make rules about what may or may not be rung with the Council's imprimitur. It is ridiculous that the Council has a standing committee for that. And, of course, the reason there are so damn many rules is *because* there are a bunch of people who have been told that their job is to make rules. There's no way that couldn't lead to too many rules. The Council shouldn't be making rules on a near annual basis -- instead it should have some nice, minimal set of them that stands unmodified for long stretches of time; when something arises that does require them to be modified, appoint a few folks specifically for that task, which disbands itself when its work is done. And, on those rare occasions when such a committee needs to be formed, it can be formed from just people that have the right skills for and and are interested in the job at hand.

-- 

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

"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with the software."

                                                  -- from a T-shirt

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> They don't have to be members of anything, and there's no reason it
> can't be done instantaneously: all you need to do is say "we want them
> to help us" and confirm that they want to do so, and away you go.

Yes. Peter just wants to confirm that all the rest of the committee are
happy with this.

> While you're at it, I strongly believe the terms of reference should
> also be changed so that they don't say the Methods Committee's primary
> job is to make rules about what may or may not be rung with the
> Council's imprimitur.

The TOR don't say anything about that, Don. All we're meant to do is
interpret the existing Decisions!

"The terms of reference of the Committee are to consider and advise on
all questions arising from the interpretation of the Council's Decisions
relating to methods, calls, and peal ringing."

And yes - in practice Tony Smith even does this too. You couldn't make
it up, etc.

[Don Morrison]

​​

​

​On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> The terms of reference of the Committee are to consider and advise

> on all questions arising from the interpretation of the Council's

> Decisions relating to methods, calls, and peal ringing."

​​Oh, come on, you know as well as I do that in practice that really means "propose the decisions that the Council rubber stamps for you." And, remember what started this whole discussion: when the Council actually told the committee to do something the committee has, for the most part, just sat on its hands.

Anyway, I believe that that whole sentence should be excised from the terms of reference. Such a change might have no effect at all, but it sure won't do any harm and might help.

-- 

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

"In a household with children [benign dictatorship] seems to be the

best system of governance, although when the children become teenagers

the dictatorship, now exercised by these latter, tends to turn

malign."            -- A C Grayling, _Ideas that Matter_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> ​​Oh, come on, you know as well as I do that in practice that really
> means "propose the decisions that the Council rubber stamps for you."

Bearing in mind I've only been to one Council meeting, no, I don't think
I'd naturally interpret the TOR to mean that.

> Anyway, I believe that that whole sentence should be excised from the
> terms of reference. Such a change might have no effect at all, but it
> sure won't do any harm and might help.

Yes, but it needs to be replaced with something. "Advising" on "methods"
sounds like a reasonable part of the job description. But in my view the
MC ought to be looking after the method libraries too - these shouldn't
be in private hands.

[Graham John]

On 26 January 2017 at 13:24, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

Don writes,

They don't have to be members of anything, and there's no reason it
can't be done instantaneously: all you need to do is say "we want them
to help us" and confirm that they want to do so, and away you go.

Yes. Peter just wants to confirm that all the rest of the committee are happy with this.

and 

Anyway, I believe that that whole sentence should be excised from the
terms of reference. Such a change might have no effect at all, but it
sure won't do any harm and might help.

Yes, but it needs to be replaced with something. "Advising" on "methods" sounds like a reasonable part of the job description. But in my view the MC ought to be looking after the method libraries too - these shouldn't be in private hands.

These statements appear contradictory to me, Mark. You say that the MC are happy to enlist help, but doesn't that mean it is fine to outsource the maintenance of the method libraries, so long as it is being done under the MC's direction.

Graham

 

[Mark Davies]

Graham writes,

> These statements appear contradictory to me, Mark. You say that the MC
> are happy to enlist help, but doesn't that mean it is fine to outsource
> the maintenance of the method libraries, so long as it is being done
> under the MC's direction.

Yes, absolutely - I didn't mean to give any other impression.

The problem is, currently the libraries are NOT under the MC's
jurisdiction. I believe the libraries belong to the Exercise as a whole,
and need to be maintained by some central organisation. As things
currently stand, this ought to be the MC's job.

This is the primary reason why I allowed my arm to be twisted to become
a CC rep and get elected to the MC. Looking after those methods properly
is the most important thing.

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> "Advising" on "methods" sounds like a reasonable part of the job description.

I disagree. It is the root of the problem. If the Council shouldn't be dictating what ringers ring, then it doesn't need a permanent committee to advise it on such matters. And no amount of picking and choosing words to try to disguise that that's what's going on is going to change things.

-- 

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

"When people are determined on a mode of conduct which they know

to be wrong, they feel injured by the expectation of any thing

better from them."          -- Jane Austen, _Sense and Sensibility_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> I disagree. It is the root of the problem. If the Council shouldn't be
> dictating what ringers ring, then it doesn't need a permanent committee
> to advise it on such matters.

"Advising" isn't dictating. Remember we need a common language - that's
the purpose of the method libraries. When you say you rang a peal of
"Deva Surprise Major", I want to know what that is.

In the end, you can ring whatever you want, but we all ought to come to
a common agreement about what to call it. The problems over the last
several decades have come about because the CC and MC have either tried
to exclude things from the method libraries, or have foisted names and
classifications on them that the band and composer didn't want.

You can't solve that problem by reverting to anarchy, and no central
catalogue system. You can solve it by ensuring the method libraries are
curated by a committee who are directly responsible to the wider world
of ringers.

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> "Advising" isn't dictating. Remember we need a common language -

> that's the purpose of the method libraries. When you say you rang a

> peal of "Deva Surprise Major", I want to know what that is.

That's not advising (a euphemism for dictating, as historically used by the Methods Committee), that's record keeping. I'm quite happy with record keeping, and agree that that is something the Council can quite productively do *for* ringing.

When you advise, for example, that you can't use half-lead calls in methods that are false in the plain course, that's not record keeping. And it's not advice, either.

-- 

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

"He sometimes wondered if the mating call of the male

[kakapo] didn't actively repel the female, which is the

sort of biological absurdity you otherwise find only

in discotheques."   -- Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> When you advise, for example, that you can't use half-lead calls in
> methods that are false in the plain course, that's not record keeping.
> And it's not advice, either.

Yes, and because that's not "advice", that's not what I mean by
"advice", either.

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

I have stated that:

1. I think we should try and adopt Tim's document, or a slightly revised version of it, as a replacement for the current Rules as soon as possible, and drop any attempt to continue to revise the existing text.

A couple of points on this.  The doc does need more work -- there are various things we never finalized.  The biggest unresolved point is on the definition of a peal -- is it all change ringing over a certain length, with additional disclosures to show if it was false, rung in relay, etc; or do peals (as the term is defined) meet additional requirements beyond being over a certain length, such as being true, not using physical aids to memory, etc.  The latter leads to the construct of standard and non-standard performances (or other equivalent terminology).  Various other unresolved areas are method extension and method classification.  I also still hope we could find ways to simplify the doc.

If there's a serious goal of adopting a new document this May, I would think the timetable would need to be something like: produce a new draft by the end of Feb, circulate it broadly within the ringing community for comment in March, and then produce an updated draft by the end of April.  This would be tight, but I think it's do'able.  Time pressure is often good for getting everyone focused.

 

2. We ought to have Graham and Tim on board.

Happy to help.

 

3. We need a change of the terms of reference of the MC, so that it is formally in charge of curating the method libraries.

Fully agree. 

 

4. We need to do develop a modern website and associated webservices for the method libraries.

Fully agree.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

"Advising" isn't dictating. Remember we need a common language - that's the purpose of the method libraries. When you say you rang a peal of "Deva Surprise Major", I want to know what that is.

In the end, you can ring whatever you want, but we all ought to come to a common agreement about what to call it. The problems over the last several decades have come about because the CC and MC have either tried to exclude things from the method libraries, or have foisted names and classifications on them that the band and composer didn't want.

You can't solve that problem by reverting to anarchy, and no central catalogue system. You can solve it by ensuring the method libraries are curated by a committee who are directly responsible to the wider world of ringers.

I'm with Mark on this.  Advising isn't the problem, the current rules are.  If we can get to a modernized set of definitions, rules, framework, whatever it ends up being called, there will still be a need to provide advice to the ringing community on it, because the underlying subject matter isn't trivial.  The CC through its MC seems well placed to be a provider of that advice, as one of the services the central body provides to ringers.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFW_6xt6H=VsP84zz5aiNZFwtMqF...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> > "Advising" on "methods" sounds like a reasonable part of the job
> > description.

> I disagree. ... If the Council shouldn't be dictating what ringers ring,

> then it doesn't need a permanent committee to advise it on such matters.

That doesn't follow. There are plenty of things on which advice can be
given that don't entail telling people what they can ring.

We agree the need for a central curator of a body of definitions etc on
behalf of the ringing community.

We agree that it is hard to ensure that such definitions etc effectively
meet the needs of the community (strong enough to be useful but flexible
and general enough to support innovation and progress.

We know that the above is quite hard (look at the man hours it took this
group to get nearly there).

We know that in areas like categorisation and extension there is no unique
answer since some things can, with prima facie legitimacy be defined in
multiple ways.

We know that it is a non-trivial technical subject.

And Don thinks advice is not needed?

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

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> > Don writes,

> > When you advise, for example, that you can't use half-lead calls in

> > methods that are false in the plain course, that's not record keeping.

> > And it's not advice, either.

> 

> Yes, and because that's not "advice", that's not what I mean by

> "advice", either.

Sadly, though, that is exactly the sort of thing the committee has concentrated on for as long as I've been ringing, and presumably longer.Currently justified by the "advise" language in its terms of reference.  As you have noted, they don't even bother with the one thing that really makes sense, keeping records of methods. It would be prudent to take the excuse for doing the wrong things away by removing them from the committee's terms of reference at the same time you add the right things.

-- 

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

"A joyful life is an individual creation that cannot be copied from a

recipe."

  -- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, _Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience_

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:34 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> We agree the need for a central curator of a body of definitions etc

> on behalf of the ringing community.

We do? I don't recall so agreeing, though perhaps I've forgotten. I'll grant that a collection of definitions is useful, but fail to see the need for a permanently convened body to look after them on a continuing basis. If they need revision annually, something is badly wrong. Oh, and, yes, something is badly wrong, isn't it? :-)

> And Don thinks advice is not needed?

This is particularly ironic. I have gone to the committee several times over the last few years asking for advice on various details of methods or extensions. In most cases by queries were met by stony silence, and I had to appeal to the various email lists or to Tony Smith to get an answer. Advice appears to be the last thing the committee is interested in dispensing.

And why do we need digging out of this pit of miserable mis-decisions? Because of advice from the Methods' Committee that that roomful of mis-decisions  were exactly what we needed. Why do we think their advice will be help fix things? Isn't this a case of foxes and henhouses? Certainly the evidence to date indicates the committee will not be a productive source of "advice". As Tony Smith himself said at the Council meeting a couple of years ago. One, brief flurry of activity (for which I do remain grateful) for the deadline of last year's Council meeting was all the constructive activity we've seen.

When worrying what the committee's terms of reference are, I strongly suggest not looking at what we may think those words should mean. Look at the actual behaviour they lead to, and amend things to try to change *that* instead.

-- 

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

"My brothers taught me to throw strikes, and thanks to that I gave up

379 home runs in the big leagues."  -- Catfish Hunter

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:
>>> Don writes,
>>> When you advise, for example, that you can't use half-lead calls in
>>> methods that are false in the plain course, that's not record keeping.
>>> And it's not advice, either.
>>
>> Yes, and because that's not "advice", that's not what I mean by
>> "advice", either.
>
> Sadly, though, that is exactly the sort of thing the committee has
> concentrated on for as long as I've been ringing, and presumably
> longer.Currently justified by the "advise" language in its terms of
> reference. As you have noted, they don't even bother with the one thing
> that really makes sense, keeping records of methods. It would be prudent to
> take the excuse for doing the wrong things away by removing them from the
> committee's terms of reference at the same time you add the right things.

I can see both sides to this. Don's right that for too long
the MC have offered "advice" which is a thinly veiled
proscription on what ringers may ring. I don't think Mark
should simply dismiss this as not being "advice", after all,
the OED gives "a decision formally taken by a deliberative
body" as one meaning of the word. As we know, parts of the
MC have failed to shed the old Law James and the Committee
on Legitimate Methods mindset, and would like their advice
to be seen as something akin to legal advice, to be ignored
at your peril.

Nevertheless, clearly giving "advice" (in a more usual sense
of the word) is something the MC ought to be doing. But
perhaps it can be worded better? At the moment, the MC is

"to consider and advise on all questions arising from the
interpretation of the Council's Decisions relating to

methods, calls, and peal ringing." There are three problems
with this. First doesn't say who it is there to advise:
the Council or ringers in general? Secondly, it's remit is
restricted to the interpretion of the Decisions. Thirdly,
it is restricted to methods, calls and peals. Variations,
non-method blocks and quarter peals are outwith its remit.

It seems to me a better remit would be "to consider and
provide information to ringers on the technical aspects of
change ringing, including but not limited to methods, calls
and peals, and through the provision of collections of
methods and variations". Ordinarily I'd suggest stopping
after "change ringing" as the rest of the sentence doesn't
actually add anything, and I generally prefer broad terms of
reference to avoid having to update them all the time. But
perhaps in this time a point in the right direction is
needed. There's no real difference between "provide
information to" and "advise", but I think the former might
be considered more neutral in the present circumstances.

RAS

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> And why do we need digging out of this pit of miserable mis-decisions?
> Because of advice from the Methods' Committee that that roomful of
> mis-decisions were exactly what we needed. Why do we think their advice
> will be help fix things? Isn't this a case of foxes and henhouses?

Can I just point out that the Methods Committee isn't the same set of
people from year to year. For example, this is the first year I'm on it!

Now I agree that the behaviour and performance of the committee doesn't
appear to have changed much over the years, but that I think has a lot
to do with three facts:

(a) The people on it are volunteers who haven't been able to devote
enough of their time to it.

(b) Probably the right group of people haven't been on it.

(c) The "real" work is still all done by Tony Smith.

These things need to change, and I want to make sure that they do.
Please support me in this.

[Mark Davies]

Tim writes,

> A couple of points on this. The doc does need more work -- there are
> various things we never finalized.

Yes, that's one reason why we need to get you on the committee and get
started. Have you heard from Peter?

> If there's a serious goal of adopting a new document this May

I think it'll have to be 2018. I would like to tell the Council this
year, i.e. May 2017, that this is what the plan is, and that we'll be
revising the document, publishing it and sending it out for peer reviews
during the year, before putting it on the table in 2018. However I need
to get the rest of the MC to buy into this idea.

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> Tim writes,

>
>> If there's a serious goal of adopting a new document this May
>
> I think it'll have to be 2018. I would like to tell the Council this year,
> i.e. May 2017, that this is what the plan is, and that we'll be revising the
> document, publishing it and sending it out for peer reviews during the year,
> before putting it on the table in 2018. However I need to get the rest of the
> MC to buy into this idea.

Okay. I can see the logic for delaying the final adoption
until 2018, but if this is your plan, I don't think you can
afford to leave it to May to say so. Announce the intention
soon, and then in early April publish the current document
in whatever state it is then in. Say it's still unfinished,
and alongside it a give list of areas that are incomplete,
that you (the MC) are not yet happy with, or where you
especially want opinions.

RAS

[Mark Davies]

On 26/01/2017 21:34, Richard Smith wrote:

> Okay. I can see the logic for delaying the final adoption
> until 2018, but if this is your plan, I don't think you can
> afford to leave it to May to say so. Announce the intention
> soon, and then in early April publish the current document
> in whatever state it is then in. Say it's still unfinished,
> and alongside it a give list of areas that are incomplete,
> that you (the MC) are not yet happy with, or where you
> especially want opinions.

That sounds a good plan.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

First doesn't say who it is there to advise: the Council or ringers in general?

Ok, so two types of advice.  Advice given by the MC to the CC on what decisions to pass -- agree this has been a problem.  And advice given by the MC to ringers at large on how to interpret the decisions -- this is a useful function, although, because of the decisions themselves, many won't have liked the answers they got.  I took the MC's terms of reference as referring to the latter, but agree it would be better if this was clarified, as well as incorporating responsibility for the methods collection.

 

It seems to me a better remit would be "to consider and provide information to ringers on the technical aspects of change ringing, including but not limited to methods, calls and peals, and through the provision of collections of methods and variations".

Looks good to me.  I think the MC (or often Tony) provides a fair amount of non-Decisions-related advice to ringers today, such as providing unnamed methods for people to ring and name, so good not to limit the ToR to Decisions-related advice.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

Have you heard from Peter?

No.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

That sounds a good plan.

Ok, shame that it'll be yet another year, but you're probably right that it won't get done in time for this year.

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> These things need to change, and I want to make sure that they do.

> Please support me in this.

Glad to do so: I will continue to argue fervently for change.

-- 

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

'The chief gift of nature, he said (never having starved),

is liberty.'            -- Will Durant, _The Renaissance_

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> I think it'll have to be 2018. I would like to tell the Council this

> year, i.e. May 2017, that this is what the plan is, and that we'll

> be revising the document, publishing it and sending it out for peer

> reviews during the year, before putting it on the table in 2018.

> However I need to get the rest of the MC to buy into this idea.

This sounds remarkably like the status quo: keep quiet until the next Council meeting, then say "we plan to have something next year", and go to ground again for ten months, with vague promises of some sort of distribution in the interim, that somehow never comes to pass.

There is no reason at all this has to be on a Council-year kind of rhythm. Work on it now, and communicate clearly and frequently the status of things. The Council meeting is just a blip along the way, that probably distracts and slows you down for a little while. You don't have to wait until everything is done to tell folks what you're up to. We'd love to hear your current thinking on whatever detail is bogging you down at a particular time.

How about fortnightly updates on the web site and to some appropriate mailing list, and a monthly update in the RW (if Robert is willing to publish it)?

If you want change, you actually have to change what you do.

-- 

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

"They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change

them yourself."     -- Andy Warhol, _The Philosophy of Andy Warhol_

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> How about fortnightly updates on the web site and to some appropriate
> mailing list, and a monthly update in the RW (if Robert is willing to
> publish it)?

Yes I agree, this definitely needs to be done in the public eye. That's
been another problem with previous MC protocol.

> If you want change, you actually have to change what you do.

Although I really have to get my G&B peals sorted first.

[Don Morrison]

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> > Have you heard from Peter?

>

> No.

Does this really need to wait on Peter? It's a committee, not an individual, right? If the rest of you, or, indeed, just a majority of you, want Tim to roll up his sleeves and help out, and he's willing, isn't that all it takes? My impression is that Peter has for a long time been displayed by some members of the committee, whether rightly or wrongly, as a bit of a bottleneck. Well intentioned and good-willed, and undoubtedly a fine human being, but nonetheless a bottleneck. If you want change, change so that that is no longer the case. As far as I can see there is no reason to believe that if you wait on the same things you've been waiting on, you'll ever stop waiting.

-- 

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

"Any great change is like cold water in winter--one shrinks from the

first plunge."    -- Letitia Elizabeth Landon, _Romance and Reality_

[Derek Williams]

On Friday, 27 January 2017 08:22:35 UTC+13, Tim Barnes wrote:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

I have stated that:

1. I think we should try and adopt Tim's document, or a slightly revised version of it, as a replacement for the current Rules as soon as possible, and drop any attempt to continue to revise the existing text.

A couple of points on this.  The doc does need more work -- there are various things we never finalized.  The biggest unresolved point is on the definition of a peal -- is it all change ringing over a certain length, with additional disclosures to show if it was false, rung in relay, etc; or do peals (as the term is defined) meet additional requirements beyond being over a certain length, such as being true, not using physical aids to memory, etc.  The latter leads to the construct of standard and non-standard performances (or other equivalent terminology).  Various other unresolved areas are method extension and method classification.  I also still hope we could find ways to simplify the doc.

If there's a serious goal of adopting a new document this May, I would think the timetable would need to be something like: produce a new draft by the end of Feb, circulate it broadly within the ringing community for comment in March, and then produce an updated draft by the end of April.  This would be tight, but I think it's do'able.  Time pressure is often good for getting everyone focused.

 

Surely we can do this and not wait for the MC's say so. if the MC comes on board so much the better. If not there will be a potential to either propose the changes from the floor of the AGM or to ask the Council to mandate an incoming MC to approve the changes. I want to see action. I have no great technical expertise, but I will stand for the MC to try ensure there is a majority for action on the Committee.

 

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> Peter has drafted a reply to Richard's letter in the RW, so

> hopefully you will see that soon.

I was disappointed to see it was not in this week's RW. In fact, it looked like there were no letters at all this week. Any idea when we're likely to see the reply? Next week? It would really be nice to see some kind of communication.

​On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> > Have you heard from Peter?

> 

> No.

How about today? Either from Peter, or from the rest of the committee?

-- 

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

"There is a kind of snobbery of failure."

   -- Robert Penn Warren, _All the King's Men_

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

How about today? Either from Peter, or from the rest of the committee?

No.

[Mark Davies]

> How about today? Either from Peter, or from the rest of
> the committee?

More prodding has been done!

[Mark Davies]

I wrote,

> More prodding has been done!

OK communication within the MC is occurring. I think there is now a
consensus to bring Tim on board, and to move forward with more radical
steps including proposing a change of TOR for the committee.