<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/06/2021 19:11, Tim Barnes wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+16xEdsai9Z9ag0h2xoHdL0prFNEVfdP77H9N3B0E0Kqh+cjw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:00 AM Philip Earis <<a
href="mailto:pje24@cantab.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pje24@cantab.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">... please don't go down
this reactionary rabbit hole of<br>
mandating qp lengths to name new methods - ....</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the feedback -- very helpful. We've also
received 3 other submissions to the consultation that object
to this change (and none supporting it), so it looks as
though the outcome will be to keep the option to name a new
method via an extent in version 2.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The band that first rings a method and publishes it, such that
the acting of publishing requires the method to have a name,
should be and are the only logical person(s) to have naming
rights, and names so given should stick. The length of the
performance is immaterial. As to what publishing means, it should
be bringing the performance to the attention of the ringing
fraternity so that it can be included in records. That implies
publishing in RW or BB or indeed anywhere else as long as the fact
is brought to the notice of the record keepers. I am not much
bothered with many of the finer details of V2 but I am pleased to
see that the proposed alteration is unlikely to go ahead.</p>
<p>Ted<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>