<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
It would appear in Council Decisions that the naming requirements do only date back to 1969.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The 1955 revision of the decisions was, as I read it, a full revision, replacing previous decisions. <a href="http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccmr1955.htm#handbook" id="LPlnk">http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccmr1955.htm#handbook</a> There appears to be no mention
on the length that needed to be rung in order to name a method. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">As an aside, the Council's move away from claiming the right to name methods appears to date back
to as early as 1926 (<a href="http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccr1955.htm" id="LPlnk844616">http://methods.org.uk/archive/ccr1955.htm</a>) and was re-affirmed in the 1955 decisions.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">There appears to have been no amendments to the naming requirements between 1955 and the 1969 revision in Council minutes or reports.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">However, in terms of practice, per RW/1969p600 (article on method names) it is noted that after the first collection of legitimate methods in 1907, where many Minor
methods were unnamed "there was as a result an immediate rush by Minor bands in various parts of the country to ring 720s of the un-named methods and thus earn the right to name them". There are further references on Names of methods in the RW Index 191--2004
which I have not looked up (mainly 1920s).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Research, here, however, has been limited to documents available on methods.org.uk and the combined RW Indes.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Richard</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="_Entity _EType_OWALinkPreview _EId_OWALinkPreview _EReadonly_1"></div>
<br>
<div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> ringing-theory <ringing-theory-bounces@bellringers.org> on behalf of ringing-theory-request@bellringers.org <ringing-theory-request@bellringers.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 June 2021 11:00<br>
<b>To:</b> ringing-theory@bellringers.org <ringing-theory@bellringers.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> ringing-theory Digest, Vol 194, Issue 5</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">Send ringing-theory mailing list submissions to<br>
ringing-theory@bellringers.org<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory">https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
ringing-theory-request@bellringers.org<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
ringing-theory-owner@bellringers.org<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ringing-theory digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Framework v2 (John Harrison)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:58:37 +0100<br>
From: John Harrison <john@jaharrison.me.uk><br>
To: ringing-theory@bellringers.org<br>
Subject: Re: [r-t] Framework v2<br>
Message-ID: <593c6aa65bjohn@jaharrison.me.uk><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br>
<br>
In article<br>
<CA+16xEdsai9Z9ag0h2xoHdL0prFNEVfdP77H9N3B0E0Kqh+cjw@mail.gmail.com>,<br>
Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
<snip><br>
> ... standardizing on a QP are consistency across stages ... to 'earn'<br>
> naming rights. ... would be overturning several centuries of method<br>
> ringing practice. <br>
<br>
Is that true? AFIA there were no rules about naming methods until the CC<br>
decided to try to impose some order. <br>
<br>
In the 1920s the Council still claimed the right to name methods itself but<br>
later relented. Does anyone know when the current rule (peal on 7+ and<br>
extent on 6-) was first formalised? It's in the 1968 Decisions but I can't<br>
track down when it was first accepted.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
John Harrison<br>
Website <a href="http://jaharrison.me.uk">http://jaharrison.me.uk</a><br>
Using 4té and ARMX6, both running RISC OS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ringing-theory mailing list<br>
ringing-theory@bellringers.org<br>
<a href="https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory">https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of ringing-theory Digest, Vol 194, Issue 5<br>
**********************************************<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>