Appendix H. Version 2 Consultation


The ringing community consultation on version 2 opened on Fri Jun 4, 2021 and ran until Fri Jul 16, 2021.

9 people submitted feedback for the consultation. These submissions are shown below (in italics), numbered by submitter, together with the responses of the Framework team (in normal font on a shaded background). Where necessary, the submissions have been minimally edited for clarity in a standalone format, and/or to preserve the anonymity of the submitter.

Submitter #9 sent in 16 separate submissions to the consultation, with a total word count approaching three times that of all other submitters combined. In the interests of transparency, we have included all 16 submissions in full below, and have answered what we think are the pertinent points.

Submissions and Responses
Submitter #1

This is excellent work, thank you. I have some comments on Appendix C. Leadhead Codes. Section F describes “Alternative Leadhead Code System” relating to “the number of Plain Leads of Plain Bob that it takes to reach the same Leadhead as it does with one Plain Lead of the Method in question ”. The description is clear but the examples relate to even stages only, as does the mapping between the existing letter codes and the alternative number codes. The present letter codes are also defined for Plain Bob leadheads for odd stages, and for Grandsire leadheads for both odd and even stages. So could the description of the alternative leadhead code system, and the mapping tables, be extended to include Plain Bob leadheads for odd stages, and Grandsire leadheads for both odd and even stages please?

Thank you for your comments. We did consider expanding the alternative leadhead codes to cover Plain Bob and Grandsire at both even and odd stages. However, the team thought that the traditional codes are rarely used other than for Plain Bob leadhead methods at even stages. We were therefore reluctant to add new material to the Framework covering alternative codes for the other scenarios that we think is unlikely to be used.

There's also a practical consideration in that we've adopted (e.g.) +1n for methods with a '1n' leadend change, where n is the stage of the method. However, for Plain Bob at odd stages the leadend change is just '1', and for Grandsire at even stages it is 'x', neither of which is easily derived from '+1n'.

Thank you also for adding Appendix J. False Courseheads. As far as I know the only place this has been available online until now has been Apart from the formatting, Appendix J seems to be pretty much a cut and paste of the page except that it omits the content at the bottom of the page relating to the 3 additional groups of false course-heads with no tenors together, and the credits to Edmund Shuttleworth and John Leary. Is this an oversight?

We took the false coursehead tables from the CC Collections of Rung Surprise, Delight, Treble Bob and Alliance Methods to the end of 1987.

We didn't previously include the X, Y and Z groups as it seemed anomalous to include groups with only tenors-split members when the tenors-split members aren't provided for any of the other groups shown.

However, in light of your comment, we have now updated the fch appendix (which has now been reordered as Appendix E) to include the existence of the X, Y and Z groups, along with an example of how this information could be used.

We will consider whether it would be worth expanding Appendix E in a future version of the Framework to include the tenors-split members (i.e. the 720 courses with all permutations of bells 2 to 7) for all fch groups. However there is a question of usefulness to consider here -- with modern composing software, the fch groups are used less than in previous eras.

I note from the Ringing World article that there are plans rework the Framework website so that it is easier to use on small-screen devices such as smartphones. Personally, I think there are limits to how much you can reasonably be expected to bend over backwards on this particularly when only a small number of people might be interested in the content. Thanks again to the Framework team for all its vital work.

Yes, we will only do what can be achieved in a reasonable amount of work and time. The aim is for the main text of the Framework to be easily readable on a phone, for example, to answer any post-ringing pub questions that might arise on Framework definitions or requirements.

Submitter #2

It appears the Framework team are proposing to undo all the good they have done by reverting to having to ring at least a quarter peal to name a method. Doubles bands like our own have used the facility to name doubles variations by ringing an extent on many occasions. This is generally done prior to a quarter peal being rung to avoid either using a duplicate name or ringing something that has previously been rung to another name. As the article states: “Naming a new method is a privilege in ringing circles” but why does this privilege have to be confined to peal and quarter peal ringers? Why rule out a Sunday service band that wishes to ring something short for a special event? In the Ringing World of 4 June 2021 there is also some debate about eighth peals so presumably naming new methods in these is ruled out too.

It took years to get to the point where we are today where every ringer can have the right to name a new method by ringing an extent or round block so why undo it again now? Please don’t go back to the outdated, elitist practice of having to ring a quarter peal or peal to name a method.

Thank you for your comments. Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method, and version 2 has now been reverted to enable a new method to also be named by ringing an extent.

The Framework team's thinking on this point had been as follows:

  • Standardising on a quarter peal as the minimum length to name a new method sets the bar at the same level for all stages;
  • Standardising on a QP+ gives a slight simplification of Framework requirements;
  • Nearly all new methods named in the past year, which included many Minimus methods, were named in QPs or longer, rather than in extents, suggesting that ringers generally view a QP as a reasonable minimum length for naming a new method.

However, as 5 people have spoken against this change in the consultation, and none spoke in favour of it, we are not moving forward with this change. We recognise that being able to name a new method by ringing an extent of it has been the practice for many decades, and we shouldn't change this unless there's a strong consensus to do so, which there doesn't appear to be.

During the pandemic I have developed a system of ringing two real handbells with Abel using recordings of our other handbells. This is like “music minus one”. I ring two real handbells in proper handbell fashion, never looking at a computer screen, so effectively I am really handbell ringing. Where does this stand within new forms of method ringing?

This would be Simulator Ringing as defined in section 6.A.6 because the ringing involves the use of a simulator (in your case Abel). It would also be Automated Ringing as defined in section 6.A.8 because Abel is generating the sounds of the bells that you're not ringing.

Submitter #3

Following the article in the RW and on reviewing the Rev2 of the Framework, I have the following comments. I am approaching this as a Guild “Performance Secretary”.

We record all RW/BB published performances. We have Peals (as defined by the CCCBR), QPs (no real rules) and ‘call changes and other performances’ which can include anything from 120 call changes to a lost peal that someone wants to record because it was rung for an occasion. Norms. To quote the RW “If a norm was not followed, that does not mean, in the eyes of the CC, that a Peal (or other length) was not rung”.

I understand the mandate of this work is to not be restrictive on what people can and can’t ring but as the Peal is the gold standard performance it should still be rung with restrictions and standards. That of course does not mean the performance should not be recorded or published (see above), but as a miscellaneous performance. Even with the added Adelaide amendment, most would still say that was a lost peal and should not have be reported as a peal of 5040 changes, even with “does not comply with all CC norms” attached. Does that 5040 count as a peal or not? Are we leaving it up to the reader to decide if the band rang a Peal? I concur with every single one of the norms, I don’t agree with the view that if one (or more) were not followed then a peal can be counted by the CC as suggested in the RW.

Thank you for your comments. As part of the major reforms in 2018, the Central Council voted overwhelmingly to move to a permissive, descriptive framework for method ringing. This followed decades of controversy over what should constitute a peal. The CC therefore no longer determines what is a peal beyond defining its length (a touch that is at least 5000 changes). However, the CC does ask for disclosure in performance reports of anything material about performances that would not reasonably be assumed if not stated.

Note that this is not a version 2 change – this new approach was put in place with version 1 of the Framework.

However, affiliated societies of the CC are free to set more restrictive rules on what they will include in their performance records if they wish. For example, a society might decide to treat performances that didn't follow all the performance norms on a case-by-case basis, and vote at the society's annual meeting on whether to include them in the society's performance records.

Submitter #4

Thanks as ever for your work and transparency around developing the Framework. There is one particular new proposal that concerns me - "We’re therefore proposing in v2 that the minimum length to be rung in order to name a new method is a quarter peal". This seems seriously misguided and retrograde to me. I've rung various notable new methods by e.g. ringing an extent (120) of doubles. This was freely permissible not just in the 'recent dark ages', but also there are historic precedents going back to the dawn of ringing in the 17th century. It seems very wrong to now try to restrict this. The given rationale in the RW article doesn't seem to make any sense - there isn't a problem of Minimus ringers causing havoc by naming extents. I'm fine with the suggestion that new methods can only be rung with all-human bands. But please don't go down this reactionary rabbit hole of mandating QP lengths to name new methods - it runs contrary to everything the Framework is about.

Thank you for your comments. Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

Submitter #5

I would like to comment on the following section of Version 2 of the Framework: “5E. Right to Name An unnamed Method or Variation may be named by the Band that first rang it in a Performance that is reported by the Ringing World, providing: a) The Performance was at least a Quarter Peal in Length;”

I request you to change this back to the previous version of condition a): “a) The Performance is either at least a Quarter Peal or contains an Extent of the Method;” Here’s why:

Your argument for the change is: “Naming a new method is a privilege in ringing circles. The new method is permanently added to the Central Council’s Methods Library and will always been known by the name given to it. This privilege is traditionally ‘earned’ by ringing a sufficient amount of the new method to justify its recording in the Library, and many would consider ringing 6 changes, or 24 or 120, to be insufficient.”

I think that the attitude expressed here is incorrect and unfair, and will now endeavour to explain why:

I was part of the band that rang an extent of a new Minimus method, as a result of which we exercised our right to name the method after the tower where it was rung (the home tower for three of us). I assure you that the band were well aware of the privilege of being able to name a method. As you know, ringing on 4 bells is not as easy as it sounds, and the new method is not an easy method. We all did our homework, concentrated hard and rang with good striking. Actually, we rang it several times in order to get it sounding really nice. Anyone who thinks that our effort was insufficient is welcome to come and ring it with us!

In addition, the method was rung as part of our service ringing, and in memory of a much-respected member of the church community. This shows that the band care about their church, and I can tell you that it meant a lot to us to have our “own” method. The ringers of 2, 3 and 4, who are members of the local band, have all loyally carried on ringing at the tower every week, when we could have abandoned it and been welcomed at more impressive towers. So I suggest that we have most certainly “earned” the right to name a method after the tower to which we have dedicated a generous proportion of our lives, both by ringing and by supporting the church in other ways.

Perhaps you fear that a band will abuse the right to name a method after ringing only an extent by ringing hundreds of such methods in a day and naming them all? Possibly, but from what you write in your RW article about Version 2 that does not seem to be occurring. In any case, Version 2 would still allow a band to do that, by ringing the methods consecutively in a quarter peal. They would still only have rung one extent of each method, so what is the difference?

It seems to me that you have changed your normative approach from a legislative one to a permissive one – with the one exception of us ringers at 3 and 4 bell towers, who apparently “aren’t to be allowed to get away with it”! What have we done that makes you think the foundations of ringing are threatened if we are allowed to have the pleasure of naming a method after a place that we care about?

Thank you for your comments. Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

Submitter #6

Thank you for all the hard work that you have put into this on a voluntary basis. It looks very good. My main feedback concerns the proposal that methods can no longer be named in extents that happen to be shorter than 1250 changes. I do not support this proposal, the reasoning for my objection being as follows:

1.) In contrast to the spirit of the post-2016 Framework being descriptive rather than prescriptive, the new proposal is prescriptive and dictatorial as to how ringers can perform a new method. I do understand and appreciate that the naming of methods and the regulating of an official methods library is one area where enforcement has to come into it. But I still think that this is an unjustified proposal.

2.) If the plain course or a touch of method m can produce the extent on n number of bells, then method m has done all that has been required of it: there are no further rows that can be rung. To me this seems a solid mathematical basis for naming a new method. The reason we would usually repeat some of those extents/rows on fewer than 7 bells is to make the performance a quarter peal+ length. But this is an arbitrary convention. The reason that quarter peals are around 1250 rows is because peals are around 5000 rows, and the reason that peals are around 5000 rows is because the 1715 peal at Norwich was a performance of the extent of Triples. So, arguably the reason that performances of 1250 rows are popular has its roots in the extent of Triples. But the new proposal turns this on its head and now makes the arbitrary 1250 the factor in naming methods rather than the extent, and to me this seems the wrong way round.

3.) The RW passage states that new methods can still be named in multi-method performances. Does this mean that you could ring 60 rows of a new Doubles method and 1200 rows of Stedman Doubles for the rest of the quarter peal? This surely entails that you have rung less than an extent of the new method, yet you still wouldn't be permitted to name the new method in a solitary extent on its own.

4.) This is about the ease in which new methods can be named in extents on lower stages. I realize that some people probably abuse the privilege of naming methods by naming several new Minimus methods to extents in one practice night. A 120 in a new Doubles method might be slightly harder to learn and execute, in terms of complexity, time taken to ring, and the number of ringers required. Similarly a 720 in a new Minor method is harder still. On this basis, if you really do feel that you have to enforce a length policy, why not propose that performances of new methods on four bells or fewer must be at least 120 rows? I don't like this much either, but I would still rather have this option than not be able to name Doubles and Minor methods in 120s and 720s respectively.

5.) Which leads me to my next point. There are some very elegant and intriguing extents of Doubles and Minor out there, particularly extents of new principles. It is fascinating how and why some of these work. In ringing these extents and naming the new methods, it seems right to only ring the extent itself, the extent which the composer has crafted. To ring a longer length just for the sake of ringing a quarter peal rather than a 120 or 720 seems a great shame and to diminish the focus of the single extent. Why must you have to ring that extent again? As I said in (2.), the extent has achieved all that is possible to achieve in the method. I do realize that you might have difficulty finding a band to join you for a 720 of Minor rather than a quarter peal, and that your research has shown that people usually do ring a quarter peal+ length in a new method. But why stop those of us who wish to name the solitary extent? This ties in with the recent suggestion in the RW that 'eighth peals' could become a benchmark performance length, which I responded to in support.

6.) In (4.) I mentioned naming methods at a practice night. Though some may abuse this possibility, a practice night might still be a good occasion to name a method for some notable event/commemoration/dedication in a parish. The vicar and local people can join the ringers at the practice night to watch the naming of the new method, and crack open the champagne afterwards. The young learner ringers can also watch and share in the historic moment. This wouldn't be so practical in a quarter peal.

This feedback is not meant to be a criticism, but a plea. Please, please reconsider this proposal which could cause some unnecessary distress if implemented.

Thank you for your comments. Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

Submitter #7

Section 3.B.1 - numbering of the rows. There is no indication of which way the numbers run. Conventionally UK ringers number from the treble (1) down the scale. I note that continental ringers number in the reverse order with their tenor being no.1. (See Facebook pages 'Post your own bell pictures' and 'Glockenfreunde'.) With the recent development of change-ringing on mainland Europe and to ensure the universal comprehension of the numbering system, I suggest that this point be expanded and clarified by stating that bell no.1 is the smallest or highest pitched bell.

We had much debate on the definition of Row during development of the Framework, including whether numbering by descending order of pitch ought to be built into the top-level definition. The essential point here is that nothing breaks in method ringing theory if bells are numbered other than by descending order of pitch. For this reason, we thought it was better and more flexible not to build descending order into the top-level definition. Instead, we stated in the Further Explanation section for Row that bells are usually numbered in descending order of pitch.

Submitter #8

Having fun playing with the Jump notation and the example methods here I assume the intention is not to have most of the Jump methods being classified as "Little"? But what am I missing which means that isn't the case? The examples are Static Methods. Most of them have Hunt bells, and often those bells don't occupy every place in a lead. Some because they are skipping over some places, but "Cambridge Minor Pair Jump Maximus" in a more genuine (ish...) way.

That’s correct that Little isn't used in the method title for methods with jump changes. This is driven by section 5.B of the Framework. Note that the Little class still applies if the hunt bell doesn’t ring in all the places of the stage – it just isn’t included in the title for a Jump method. This is the same approach as for Hybrid methods.

Submitter #9

(1) "Call Changes It’s been suggested that the Framework should be expanded to incorporate call change ringing."

(2) This misunderstands the problem. No expansion of the Framework (v1) is needed to incorporate call-changes. The Framework (v1) already defines some call-change ringing as method ringing. ...

(3) … because call-change ringing is an inevitable consequence of including within the Framework (v1) “3.C.2. Identity Change. A Change that transposes each bell to the same Place in a new Row.” while Appendix E D (Boundaries) 1. (Scope) opines “The scope of the framework is method ringing . It does not cover call (or called) changes” The inconsistency should therefore be resolved by version 2.

(4) The constraints which the Framework (v1) imposes to take call-change ringing, however inadvertently, within its scope (to be precise: within Framework norms 6.C) are that - an extent is rung (ie every possible row is rung, maybe with a tenor behind) - each distinct row in the Performance is rung exactly the same number of times, before moving on to the next row. (Or to be precise: some rows might be rung exactly once less than the remainder)

(5) Also, the Framework’s stated principles are not followed in this current approach to call-change ringing: Appendix E C (Boundaries) 1. (Scope) "Avoid arbitrary rules and value judgements. Seek to find the logical boundaries that define the limits of method ringing, and ensure the framework supports everything within these boundaries."

(6) A clean solution is to redefine the Framework as real ringers actually describe Change Ringing to their new recruits and to the public: that the fundamental purpose of Method Ringing is to ring changes, which have each row different to its predecessor. (Even if the quoted enthusiasm from Plain Bob Doubles ringers for a 12345-single were a reality). Therefore remove 3.C.2 and make necessary consequential alterations.

(7) Alternatively find the aforementioned logical boundaries of method-ringing which includes call-changes, and define the length of a Touch in 3.I.2 to exclude Identity Changes, and have another category of Accepted Truth 3.J.6 that excludes the repeated changes generated from the Identity Change from the truth calculations.

(8) In the same way that Framework (v1) introduced to ringers the new concept of the Jump-Change-to-Rounds to immediately conclude a wobbly Performance, Framework (v2) would facilitate a “Freeze” call to cause the current row to be repeated while the conductor thinks out the best way to carry on. This would be fun. :-)

(9) "We’ve discussed this among the Framework team and with CC Executive members and have concluded that there isn’t a need for this at the moment."

(10) The document ought to tell us about these discussions, and what were the criteria used to come to the conclusion, and when the undefined Important People thought such criteria might be met in future. Similarly there is no mention of any such discussion at Council Executive meetings, so whether Executive members have or have not had informal discussions does not seem to help us.

(11) While call change ringing is a well-established and important branch of change ringing, there is much less of a tradition of publishing call change performances, … Many more of these have been published since the suspension of ringing. It would help ringers’ development to have a structure around these Performances, and more widespread recognition of them by publication.

(12) "... there isn’t a central library with named call change callings nor a classification system for call changes, there aren’t record lengths rung of call changes, and so on, these being the main areas addressed by the Framework. " This is a circular argument. If there is no recognition within the rules (indeed their intended specific exclusion) of the value of call change ringing, then there is no incentive to develop the structures that allow ringers to exchange and compare their Performances. The better question is “What harm would it do to include them?” There is certainly more enthusiasm for these Performances than there is for Jump Changes.

(13) "And there are other ringing publications available that explain the mechanics of ringing call changes." I don’t see why this is a relevant consideration. For example, BellBoard initially diverted simulator-assisted Performances to a Facebook group, but later relented and made amendments to encourage their notification. It would also be useful to link to such publications (of which I have been blissfully unaware all these years) for evaluation purposes.

The difference between method ringing and call change ringing is not a function of the rows that are rung, but the manner in which they are rung.

In method ringing, the band executes continual changes according to the method, having memorized in advance the information needed to generate them.

In call change ringing, the band executes each individual change on the conductor's command, and then rings the resulting row until the next change is called.

Typo: Both v1/v2: Appendix E section C para 1 last sentence: "Section B below" should be "Section D below"

Thanks -- this has been corrected in version 1, and is no longer applicable to version 2 following reorganization of the appendices.

(1) “With the increase in 3- and 4-bell ringing, this means new methods can be named by ringing as few as 6 changes.” The following is both a pedantic point, and an illustration of one piece of woolly thinking in the paper.

(2) The number of changes needed to define and name a Method is wholly defined by the provisions of the Framework (v1) …

(3) … and is independent of the popularity or otherwise of 3- and 4- bell ringing. The implication words “this means” are therefore both inaccurate and irrelevant

(4) The prominence of 3- and 4- bell ringing has increased, most likely because of the Accursed Virus, its lockdowns and suspensions of towerbell ringing …

(5) … and such increased prominence is likely to be temporary …

(6) … and making long-term Framework changes based on this temporary blip is likely to be poor and ill-considered legislation …

(7) … particularly so if it is based on the rhetorical flourish claiming, or appearing to claim, that ringers have named method(s) based on Performances of six changes.

(7) I challenge the technical accuracy of the statement, derived from (1) above (with irrelevant words removed):

“new 3-bell methods can be named by ringing as few as six changes”

Framework (v1) 5.E.1(a) “An unnamed Method may be named ... providing: The Performance … contains an Extent of the Method.”

Framework (v1) 3.J.1:”Extent [on 3 bells] The complete set of distinct Rows possible [on 3] bells.”

Framework (v1) 3.J.1 Further explanation: “[an Extent of a] Method ... generally refers to an ordered Extent generated using the Changes of [the Method] ... (and any necessary Calls). “

(8) Firstly, then, no band has, under the Framework, actually named a 3-bell method with a Performance of six changes. …

(9) … primarily because it is really, really hard so-to-do. …

(10) A method with a place notation with three or more changes will repeat a Row in its Plain Course, and therefore need a multi-Extent (of a multiple of six changes) to be True.

(11) The one obvious two-change three-bell Method had already been named (insofar as any Method could claim to have been named under the Decisions) when the Framework was adopted, in both of its rotations: Original Singles, with a Peal recorded on Sat 15 Oct 1949 Reverse Original Singles with an Extent recorded on Fri 28 Jun 1963

(12) Beyond that, we are into complicated and pointless quibbling on what may and may not be named. Maybe the method with the one change “3” and another Method with the one change “1” could be named. Splicing them in an extent of six changes would be True, and the quibble is whether we have rung an Extent of either of them in the terms of 5.E.1(a) and the Framework (v1) 3.J.1’s further explanation as at (7) above. And the Framework definitions may quibble that these Methods have a Stage of Two rather than a Stage of Singles.

(13) As a riposte, maybe we can add an arbitrary number of Identity Changes (Framework 3.C.2) to Original Singles to make a new Method, then omit them with a Call (Framework 3.F.1) and ring an Extent with just the six changes.

(14) Or just ring but note that under Framework 5.C.6. this Method “is not normally separately recorded in the Methods Library [as] its sequence of Changes is a multiple of another Method's sequence of Changes “

Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

"Appendix E. Framework Development" applies to Version 1 and could usefully be expanded to explain how version 2 was developed. Or made explicitly to say that this applies only to version 1. I would find it of value to know the team involved in version 2 development (Appendix E.B), and how different from Version 1; the Goals or amended Goals (Appendix E. C); the Boundaries (Appendix E D) including the thinking on remote/online ringing.

Thank you for these suggestions. We've now reorganized the appendices such that Appendix F contains the design principles behind the Framework (unchanged from version 1), and appendices G and H have information on version 2 development.

(1) “proposing in v2 that the minimum length to be rung in order to name a new method is a quarter peal.”

(2) The consultation excludes any consideration of the traditions around Minor ringing. The fact of the tradition of naming a new Minor method by ringing an Extent of it is not even mentioned.

(3) There is (considered separately) an unsupported and non-evidenced assertion that 120 changes is insufficient to name a new Method. Even if that had any support as an argument, there is nothing to say why ringing a Minor Extent is no longer acceptable …

(4) … or what has changed to alter the long traditions within Minor ringing.

(5) Consider the proposed new ruling from the perspective of, say, a closed-handstroke Minor-ringing band that has been contributing new Minor methods for two hundred years.

(6) The Council took a view from its Legitimate Methods initiative at the beginning of the twentieth century that some Minor methods were no longer ‘legitimate’, but even then, it continued to accept the right of bands introducing new Minor Methods to give them names …

(7) … and in 1926 it considered a report from its Nomenclature Committee which was particularly fussed about Methods named after flowers, but in the end nothing was done about them.

(8) In 1976 the Council (responding to a spat about that well-known Scottish hamlet) voted itself able to change Method names given by bands, and in 1986 it added the option to leave new Methods unnamed. A few small wording changes in the 2000s had no fundamental affect on naming Minor methods. In 2013 round blocks of more than one extent could be used to name new Methods and there was the significant alteration in 2016 to allow Triples/Major/etc Methods to be named with a Quarter Peal rather than a Peal: this did not affect Minor ringing, which had always been able to name a new Method with an Extent, ...

(9) …but it did admit of the possibility of naming Minimus methods with an Extent thereof, which had not been mentioned before.. However these were all with the Decisions’ definition of a Method which required it to be True in its Plain Course and divisible into leads.

(10) It was the Framework which removed all constraints on a Method, which became defined in 3.E.1 ,as well as inventing the Identity Change 3.C.2 , and encompassing Methods on three two and one bell(s). 3.A.2., thus creating an infinite number of possible new Methods at every Stage …

(11) ... and having created this infinite number of Singles (and Two) Methods, and despite there being no great enthusiasm from the ringing community to define them, the version 2 team proposes (separate comment on this) with no evidence that “many would consider ringing 6 changes, or 24 or 120, to be insufficient”. Whether or not that unsubstantiated comment is true, or whether these “many” are Important People To Be Listened To, the proposal does not even admit of the many Methods defined by ringing Minor Extents, and just arrogantly sweeps by, onwards and upwards, towards its assertion that a Quarter Peal is necessary.

(12) Also passing-by the mathematical elegance of an Extent, which in Minor is a significant and worthwhile Performance as well as being technically more constrained than a Minor Quarter Peal.

Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

Adelaide amendment

(1) The actual peal in Adelaide included all the information that would now be required by Framework v2. …

(2) … and the Framework Team ought to tell us why they considered any changes to be necessary: or to put it another way, what was wrong with a “do nothing” approach …

(3) … and how big is the perceived problem? How many Performances, currently un-noted, would need a note relating to the newly-proposed norm?

(4) … and if we don’t know that, and haven’t commissioned any research to find out, how can we say with assurance, as Framework v2 claims in the Further explanation of 6.C.n. “an attempt to ring 7 Extents of Minor was lost in the 5th extent, the first 4 Extents are not normally considered to constitute a successful Performance”. ??

(5) To know the prevalent view of the Ringing Community on the issue, we would need to know how many Minor Peal-attempts (of the seven-separate-extents variety) which came to grief in the third-or-later extents were considered as successful quarters but (sadly) didn’t reach the Peal length? How many within that Ringing Community would consider it in some way *unreasonable* (or immoral) to say they had a completed Quarter Peal in these circumstances? As opposed to those who have no particular view, or just habitually don’t write these in their Ringers’ Diary?

(6) And these words of 6.C.n. Further Explanation “an attempt ... was lost in the 5th extent, the first 4 Extents are not normally considered to constitute a successful Performance”. is itself a Value Judgement, which Appendix E. Framework Development, C. Goals 1 deprecates: “Avoid arbitrary rules and value judgements“ For example 6. C. 2. a) seeks that “The Performance was ... started and ended in Rounds” and we could, but don’t, expand this with the judgemental advice “starting from other-than-Rounds is not normally considered to constitute a Performance”. Let’s continue to seek out information on what was rung, rather than lecturing our readers within the Framework on whether or not it is acceptable; or even “considered to constitute“ success.

(7) There is another clear flaw in the words proposed: 6.C.n “The Performance was not part of a failed longer attempt”. Consider the 5040 Stedman Triples which continued with another Plain Course of 84 changes to fill time before the service. To the listener outside, they could reasonably expect to see a Performance Report of 5124 Stedman Triples. If submitted as 5040, there is no norm to require notification of what was actually rung. The band would seem to be able to choose to submit Performances of 5040, or 84, or 5124, or (with a bit of arm-waving about the definition of a Block) both 5040 and 84 …

(8) … but as there is no definition of “failed”, nor of “intended Performance”; we don’t know if a Jump-Change-to-Rounds after 72 changes counts as a failure; nor whether that Jump Change in some way compromises the 5040 Performance …

(9) … or whether it has something to do with the thought processes of some or all members of the band in the context of “anything rung ... after the intended Performance “ (6.C.n. Further Explanation) making no difference to the 5040….

(10) … and if so we are within the arena of Winston Smith’s (who rang the fourth) thoughtcrimes: he would have preferred an extra 1900 changes before the service

(11) The RW article opines the above as “norm that was missing in Framework v1”. Well, it was that, but it doesn’t mean that it was an error so to do; or that had it been discussed it would have been included.

(12) More worthy would be a norm to declare that an Identity Change was used in the reported Performance. This would be contrary to ringing in the traditions understood by those whom we teach about ringing, and would be a useful addition for record-compliers, who may well wish to classify such Performances separately.

In the case of a plain course of Stedman Triples rung after a 5040 in order to fill time before the service, this could indeed be reported either as a 5040 or a 5124. We assume most bands would choose to report a 5040.

(1) “proposing in v2 that the minimum length to be rung in order to name a new method is a quarter peal.”.

ADDITIONAL POINT for earlier comment

(13) I agree with Simon Linford's blog #36 which said "some people are ringing 720s, ... because like me they have come to the conclusion that adding a block of changes that is less than an extent onto an extent to make it quarter of a length that only really means anything for triples, is actually quite odd. 720 is a good length for a performance."

Following feedback from this consultation, we’re not moving forward with the proposed change to require a quarter peal or longer to name a new method. Please see the response to submitter #2 above for a fuller explanation.

Value Judgements

(1) Appendix E. Framework Development, C. Goals 1 says ...“Avoid arbitrary rules and value judgements. “ and this was emphasised throughout the version 1 development as an important part of the CRAG proposals and a vital distinction from the traditional approach of the Decisions. (“Follow these rules or your Peal is disallowed. YahBoo”) . It is re-stated in the RW article: “ the approach of the CC under the Framework is not to ... pass judgement ... but to ensure that readers of performance reports are clear about what was rung, and how, so they may form their own opinions. “

(2) There are a disappointingly large number of these Value Judgements within the v2 proposals, all competing with the Decisions’ patronising style. This set of comments brings them together in one place to help the better wielding of the red pencil.

(3) The words of 6.C.n. Further Explanation “an attempt to ring 7 Extents of Minor was lost in the 5th extent, the first 4 Extents are not normally considered to constitute a successful Performance”. By Whom is it so considered? Just tell us what was rung, and the reader can decide whether they think the Performance is a successful one.

(4) “Naming a new method is a privilege in ringing circles. ... This privilege is traditionally ‘earned’ by ringing a sufficient amount of the new method to justify its recording in the [Central Council’s Methods] Library,

(5) “many would consider ringing 6 changes, or 24 or 120, to be insufficient [amount of a new method to justify its recording in the Central Council’s Methods Library]” How many ? Who has been asked? Is there a survey?

(6) “we’ve added recent new methods named in performances with automated ringing to the Methods Library, and this seemed appropriate during the pandemic restrictions. But we believe most ringers would think that a new method should be named by an all-human band” How do we know most ringers think this? Who has been asked? Is there a survey?

(7) “21 of these 29 new methods were subsequently rung to a QP shortly afterwards, leaving only 8 (1%) that have *only* been rung to an extent.” (My *emphasis* on the underlying superiority of Quarter Peals over extents)

(8) "It’s been suggested that the Framework should be expanded to incorporate call change ringing. We’ve discussed this among the Framework team and with CC Executive members and have concluded that there isn’t a need for this at the moment. “. Maybe these are the “many” and the “most ringers” referred to above?

Re: "Just tell us what was rung, and the reader can decide whether they think the Performance is a successful one" -- that is the purpose of new disclosure requirement 6.C.2 n).

See earlier response on naming new methods.

On automated ringing, this consultation is the survey. No one has objected to the all-human-band requirement for naming new methods.

(1) Naming new methods. This section of the paper has woolly thinking; it needs expansion of its overall reasoning, evidence and documentation of its assertions about the views of ringers and a better understanding of the historical perspective of ringing traditions.

(2) The particular effect on Minor ringing, completely ignored in the RW article, the provenance of the lambasted and inaccurately hypothesised 6-change naming Performances, and the prevalence of value judgements hereabouts, are all covered in separate comments on these topics. The last of these addresses the unsupported assertions about what proportion of ringers would think that the proposals need to be implemented. “most ringers would think …”, “many would consider ...”

(3) The Framework does not state explicitly *why* Methods have names, nor the *primary* purpose of these names and the additional data collected in the Method Library. Like all names, a Method Name (Method Title) is a shorthand for that fuller Method Library detail, which is sufficient (for example) for a ringer to participate in a Plain Course of the method (remembering whether there is a Rotation and to agree this beforehand).

(4) It allows ringers to *communicate* unambiguously about a method to be rung or discussed and this primary purpose could usefully be added as Further Explanation in section 5.A.2 ...

(5) ...Information about when and by whom the Method was first rung is therefore of secondary importance, compared with the benefit of unambiguous and efficient communication between ringers.

(6) “a new method should be named by all-human band”. This is one of the “most ringers would think” assertions that has no supporting evidence. The proposal thereby misses the point about how methods come about …

(7) The Composer identifies a sequence of changes as worthy of communication to the ringing community; and, as an aside, there would be merit in acknowledging within the Method Library the intellectual property and contribution of Composers in the creation of their new methods…

(8) … and the current route for the Composer’s communication of a new method idea is to be part of a band completing a Performance of the Method and then sending-in the Performance and having a Method name added to the Method Library. Alternatively it is possible to persuade a different band and Conductor to ring the Performance, and use as the new Method Name, the Composer’s preferred name.

(9) In either case, this is in contrast to a new Composition in a previously-named Method, when the results of the Composer’s deliberations may be straightforwardly published, on CompLib or elsewhere, and the Composer’s contribution will be acknowledged whenever their work has been performed. Where useful, compositions can have composition names.

(10) To benefit the ringing community from new work, ideas, and thoughts about ringing, we need to aid communication by having agreed names for the entities we are discussing. Appendix E A seeks a simple and permissive descriptive Framework, and this needs to apply to Method naming as well as Performance ringing. It all argues for fewer, rather than more, restrictions on creating Method names …

(11) … and as progress towards this aim, it would be advantageous for Framework v2 to encourage the recording of names for new methods whenever they are first performed, however long the Performance is. Indeed it should make a benefit of its perceived weakness (introduced in Framework v1), by naming a new Method by ringing a lead of it (whether by humans or otherwise), which may indeed only be six (or fewer) Changes.

(12) If this human-machine debate is of concern to “most ringers”, v2 documentation should emphasise both the contribution of the Composer and the Conductor to any Performance, as well as any ringers (whether human or not).

(13) As to those whose use of Method Names is to commemorate a special event (rather than communicate new compositions or ideas), we should emphasise that there is no shortage of new Methods to use, particularly now that the Framework allows any sequence of Changes to be a Method. For example they may take the Changes between the (say) fourteenth and thirty-third Rows of their chosen Performance, and give them a Method Name if one has not previously been defined.

We disagree with overturning the longstanding method ringing tradition that certain lengths are required to be rung in order to name new methods.

Will there be a Version 3?

(1) Version 2 article, on the future of the Framework: “Framework team have two goals ... undertake a review of all the method extension processes (Appendix D). ... rework the Framework website so … easier to use on small-screen devices such as smartphones“ ...

(2) … which is a limited ambition for and version 3 compared with the developments mentioned in Appendix I of version 1. It would be better to know the status and progress of work on *all* those items already mentioned on the Framework website.

(3) Appendix I C 10 A has the team “open to any suggestions on how the framework could be simplified.” and that “there will be subsequent versions of the framework, which will give the opportunity for new ideas to be considered” while Appendix I G 4 A “welcome[s] any suggestions on an ongoing basis on how the framework might be made clearer and Appendix I G 2 A “envisage[s] a process of continuous improvement to the framework over time as issues and inconsistencies are discovered, and as method ringing continues to evolve. “ …

(4) … and the invitation for contributions, timetable and consultation mechanisms on such developments have not been advertised.

(5) Version 1 already identified in Appendix I B 5 A the need for “improving the appearance of the framework website” while Appendix I M 2a) A said “the framework isn’t easy to read on a mobile device.”, Appendix I M 9m) A mentioned that “framework hyperlinks green. … To be revisited” and Appendix I M 9p) A sought “ideally finding a way to automate the management of cross reference hyperlinks.” …

(6) … and version 2 has no progress on these items beyond a priority for smaller-screen use in version 3

(7) Appendix I A 2 A commits to “update [this section, when ready] ... with a link to the classification comparison table [between] the classifications used in the Decisions, Alt A, Alt B, and the final [Framework] classification system” but there seems to be no progress on this.

(8) Appendix I B 10 A seeks “a new section ... of the framework that describes method ringing in mathematical terms” but there is nothing on this in Version 2

(9) Appendix I G 5 A expects “handstroke gaps / cartwheeling, bell spacing and similar topics” to be added, but there is nothing on this in Version 2

(10) Both Appendix I M 2e) A and Appendix I M 9t) A mentions “The possibility of expanding the Variations library to record Variations at other stages [above Doubles]” but there is no mention of when this might be done.

(11) Appendix I M 9x) A opines “There may be a case for a separate category of records for relay performances,” and qualified this by “if such a performance is rung”, although the Extent of Major in Leeds Kent on 7-8 April 1761 seems not to have triggered this further consideration, despite other previously unrecognised Peals having been provided for.

(12) On the subject of Dynamic Methods, a concept introduced by Version 1, Appendix I B 29 A opines “dynamic calls as a separate type of call as their use seems unlikely. They could be added to a future version of the framework if compositions emerge that use them, and if having a central definition of dynamic calls is thought to aid ringers in communicating about method ringing.” and similarly Appendix I L 2 A has it that "Dynamic Methods are in their infancy, and more precise definitions in this area may be developed for future versions of the framework if there is sufficient interest by the ringing community” and Appendix I L 4h) A says the team “haven’t tried to determine what restrictions (if any) should be applied to the processes underlying dynamic methods, nor specify how dynamic methods should be recorded in the methods library.” and suggests “ consider[ation] in future versions of the framework“ …

(13) … while Appendix I C 10 A says “To be effective, the framework needs to be able to describe all reasonably foreseeable forms of method ringing, not just 'everyday' ringing. Otherwise it's not a framework -- it's a limited description of some common forms of method ringing.” Quite So. ...

(14) … and Appendix I D 1 A says “there may be a case for adding [call change ringing] in a subsequent version of the framework if the ringing community thinks this would be useful. Alternatively, a separate framework for call change ringing could be developed “ My separate comment expands on this.

(15) Even on Jump Changes Appendix I C 12 A has it that “jump-n notation is a good suggestion ...[but] jump changes are rarely rung,” and Appendix I M 9l) A says “there may be a case for enabling hunters with jump changes be part of other hunter sub-classes (e.g. X Jump Surprise Major, Y Jump Little Treble Bob Royal), as well as possibly adding a sub-class where the hunt bell jumps (e.g. Cambridge Treble Jump Minor).” there is nothing in version 2

Hyperlinks are underlined in v2 to make them easier to see.

Maintaining cross-references continues to be manual. We will look at options for improving this as part of considering what could be done to make the Framework easier to read on a smartphone.

On the comparison of v1 classification options and classification in the Decisions, we didn't include this in the Framework itself as this would be backward-looking. We summarized the outcome of the v1 classification discussion in the 4th Ringing World article on Framework v1 (see v1 Appendix G.7).

On a mathematical treatment of method ringing, we will include this in a future version of the Framework if there are ringing mathematicians available and willing to write it.

On handstroke gaps / cartwheeling, bell spacing, etc, we don't now think it necessary to include these in the Framework as nothing has arisen to suggest there would be benefits from adding them.

The variations and calls libraries are still on the list of projects to tackle.

Adding rung dynamic methods to the Methods Library also remains on the project list.

We continue to think call change ringing should be documented separately from the Framework for Method Ringing, if the ringing community believes there is a need for such a document.

We do not think jump methods require sub-classification at this point in time.

Ringing Styles: New forms of method ringing

(1) “We envisage [Ringing Style] being expanded to also include the categories ‘Keyboard’ (such as with Ringing Room, but would also apply to a method ringing performance on a carillon); ‘Other’ (rare cases such as ringing from the frame (East Bergholt) or tapping handbells with mallets) “

(2) To be consistent with other parts off the Framework, rarity is not a relevant criterion. The obvious example is the effort put into worrying about Jump changes: comparisons with hens’ teeth come to mind.

(3) There is a significant departure from the Framework version 1 view-of-ringing here: we have not previously contemplated ringing that looks the same at both handstroke and backstroke, and it was this previously essential distinction that prevented worthy bellringing performances being in ringing records …

(4) *Tapping style* … for example Elijah Roberts, “who distinguished himself by tapping some extraordinary peals on handbells, 7,536 Kent Treble Bob Maximus [9 April 1830] ; 5,016 Stedman Cinques [on 30 June 1833], and 19,440 Treble Twelve. Most of his peals were rung in the presence of competent witnesses.” This was reported in RW on 21 Jan 1941 p42, which also notes that Elijah committed suicide at Liverpool on January 26th, 1865. A biography in RW on 30 May 1941 p262 listed more peals, and concluded that drinking was a greater contributor to his death than was tapping handbells. Also mentioned in RW 15 October 1943 p451.

(5) Of Sam Thurston’s historic performances approx 1820 (RW 10 Jan 1941 p15) “ … tapping three courses of Bob Major on handbells was described in most of the Norwich papers as ‘most nobly brought round in 14 minutes, being the greatest performance in the art in the British Dominions.'”

(6) “Giants of the Exercise” by Dr. John C. Eisel mentions a number of notable tapping performers.

(7) … and as an honourable tradition in ringing, tapping deserves its name and section in the Ringing Styles list.

(8) A more modern instrument for tapping style are *Tabletop bells*. These are manufactured primarily for the toy market, not of bell metal but having distinctive (tinkly) notes: they may be sounded in a traditional handbell fashion with up and down strokes retained in hand (style already covered in the Framework), and also by pressing a plunger at the top of the bell. Pressing the tabletop plunger and leaving the bells in the same physical position, is similar to striking fixed bells with a mallet, in traditional tapping style. ...

(9) … They may be rung in the traditional two-bells-each style as handbells often are, with one ringer controlling a pair (or maybe more) bells, ...

(10) … or may be mouth-down on a table, and if a smooth table, moved around by the operating ringer(s). Or one ringer may be moving bells and another ringer sounding them. The sets may overlap: maybe six ringers could be moving twelve bells and another three or four ringers sounding them.

(11) Tabletop bell can also work remotely over the Internet, and entertainingly well on twelve bells, maybe with two six-bell compositions alongside one another.

(12) *Lapping style* Also deserving of its own name in the Ringing styles list, and also with an honourable history of ringing is lapping. This is well covered on the CC website, so needs no further explanation than the video:

(13) … and of course Tabletop bells do this well on their smooth table as mentioned above.

While there have been notable tapping performances historically, this style of method ringing has not been used much in recent times. As the categories defined in 6.A.4 will be used primarily in producing analyses of method ringing performances, we think it is reasonable for styles with low current usage to be grouped into 'Other'. This can be changed in future if warranted.

Ringing Styles: New forms of method ringing

Some further thoughts on how to include bells and other real noise-making instruments in the Framework text.

(14) From the RW article: “We envisage [Ringing Style] being expanded to also include the categories ‘Keyboard’ (such as with Ringing Room, but would also apply to a method ringing performance on a carillon); ‘Other’ (rare cases such as ringing from the frame (East Bergholt) or tapping handbells with mallets) “

and from the Framework v2 draft: “Ringing Style One of the following styles in which method ringing can be performed: a) Towerbell Style: Full-circle ringing with rope and wheel, using handstroke and backstroke actions; b) Handbell Style: Alternating upstrokes and downstrokes -- usually upstrokes for handstrokes and downstrokes for backstrokes; c) Keyboard Style: Bells sound via presses on a keyboard, such as with Online Ringing (see Section 6.A.7) or a carillon; d) Other Style: To be specified in Performance Reports, such as ringing on the frame or tapping bells; e) Mixed Style: More than one of the above styles were used in a Performance ”

(15) The Framework wording hints at being prescriptive rather than permissive and comprehensive; “can” has a “cannot” behind it. “One of the following styles of method ringing” would be less judgemental. As at my (3) earlier, the expansion of ringing to include the mingling of handstroke and backstroke admits of many extra styles on other musical / percussion instruments, and maybe even mixtures of them in the same Performance, as at e), maybe where only one ringer has a handstroke/backstroke style.

(16) Between a) and b) it would be more logical to include other ways of ringing big bells, such as East Bergholt, Ellacombe chimes and the carillon. As an aside, Wikipedia says “The Ellacombe apparatus is a mechanism devised for performing change ringing on church bells”

(17) … and other forms of chiming, including holding a full-circle-ringing-bell’s rope and releasing it, half-wheels, and chiming the (historic, unique) Naylor steel bells at Millennium Gallery Sheffield.

(18) As earlier comments, between b) and c) we should have styles relating to traditional handbells: Tune ringing (no-handstroke-backstroke), Lapping, and Tapping.

(19) The Keyboard style ought to link to the simulated sound of a computer: Also between b) and c) we should include xylophone, pressing piano or harpsichord or clavichord keys, and any other keyboard instruments. Other pluckable stringed instruments deserve a mention: and then Bassoons, trumpets and trombones do have keys and Piccolos and Recorders do have holes to cover, and tubular bells ought to be covered somewhere under tapping ...

In line with your suggestion to avoid 'can', we have reworded 6.A.4 as 'One of the following styles in which method ringing is performed'.

The link of Keyboard style to the simulated sound of a computer is achieved via 6.B.1 d). E.g. 'Ringing Room' would be named as the simulator for a keyboard performance on Ringing Room, and norm 6.C.2 h) states that simulated sound for such a performance is assumed if not stated otherwise.

Ringing Styles: New forms of method ringing

Some additional thoughts on fully embracing method ringing on media different from bells.

(20) *Scouting style* Each participant has one bell and everyone stands in a row: the bells may be ordinary handbells, but tabletop bells in plunger-style also work well. They may pass the bells between them, and this is covered above by the lapping style. Distinctive to this Scouting Style is that participants take the bells with them and change places with one another. The basic system is that all participants face the same way, and those moving up the Row pass behind those moving down the Row, the Row always being rung left to right from the view of the Conductor. …

(21) The more advanced system has participants facing their direction of travel (which is well-defined for right-placed methods). Those moving up at handstroke make one diagonal step with their left foot, and return to the line with another diagonal step with their right foot, thus passing those moving down doing the same thing in the opposite direction: if making a place, they turn around on the spot, and when dodging they continue with their expected next foot but do the movement backwards. For example to dodge up, take one diagonal right-foot-backwards step followed by a backwards diagonal left footstep, in a do-si-do fashion with the other dodging participant. Three-leads of Norwich SM is particularly entertaining.

(22) Appendix E D 1 as modified by 6.C.2. o), Cylindrical ringing, is easily facilitated by adapting this style to a circle and allowing ringers to continue going up, around the circle, swapping with those continually going down, It works best with an odd number of participants.

(23) *Tin Tan style* This style is valuable in the absence of any handbells, with provenance from The Nine Tailors by Dorothy L Sayers.”’Go [Kent]’ The bells gave tongue: Gaude, Sabaoth, John, Jericho, Jubilee, Dimity, Batty Thomas and Tailor Paul, … huge wheels turning to the dance of the leaping ropes. tin tan din dan bim bam bom bo - (gap) tan tin din dan bam bim bo bom - tin tan dan din bim bam bom bo - (gap) tan tin dan din bam bim bo bom - tan dan tin bam din bo bim bom - every bell in her place striking tuneably …” The ringers say (or if musical, sing) their bell name in the same place that their bell would have sounded if they had had one. …

(24) … and if sufficiently athletic, they stand-up for the handstroke and sit-down for the backstroke. Choosing a suitable location is important, as this can empty a pub, or get the band thrown out. Augmenting to twelve requires additional notes, maybe pin pan win wam ... and the adventurous may require a flat sixth. And remember that tin tan din dan is a major scale whereas other combinations don’t follow tone-tone-semitone.

(25) *Progression style* This is particularly useful for a wide grassed area. Participants walk in parallel and progress four paces forward for each Row, swapping as necessary such that the row is always rung from left to right. …

(26) … a bicycled version requires an even bigger area, significant bicycling skills and bicycle bells that are in tune.

(27) Progressing northwards along the four lanes of the M1 on a quiet night needs specific agreement that bells (cars) going up drop back before changing lane and everyone waits for the line to re-form before the next hoot. Sadly too ambitious a Performance will see the inside driver heading off to Milton Keynes at J13 ...

We leave it with the submitter to popularize these styles of method ringing.

Development of the Framework

(1) An area of focus for version 2 was the new forms of ringing that took off during the pandemic. As noted above, the approach of the CC under the Framework is not to rule in, rule out, or otherwise pass judgement on different types of method ringing, but to ensure that readers of performance reports are clear about what was rung, and how, so they may form their own opinions”

(2) There is an irony here for how the Framework responds to innovations in Ringing. The Decisions discouraged innovation by disallowing the results of any innovation until it had been rung at least once, then disallowed, probably debated-at-length (by the Council which mostly didn’t understand the issues it was debating) and perhaps rule-changed: and even then that-which-had-been-disallowed continued to be disallowed.

(3) CRAG reforms, thence the Framework, took a completely different approach by making the scope of Method Ringing as wide as it could possibly be, *and* as a backstop, required disclosure of anything not previously contemplated, and allowing ringers to make their own assessment of which Performances they were interested in. This is in addition to the disclosure requirements already necessary for non-traditional ringing.

(4) Within the development of Version 1 it seemed worthwhile to include a scoping description, along the lines that there has to be a boundary somewhere, and that ended up as Appendix E D. This eschewed, for example, ringing when two or more bells deliberately strike at the same time, such as firing or partial firing. Later, a catch-all reporting requirement was included at 6.C.2.o), encompassing everything that was been out of scope, as a Performance that *can* be reported with a note about the norms not followed.

(5) The “Permissive” requirement of CRAG doesn’t require popularity-in-ringing, or indeed the fact of any actual Performances, before descriptive terms are included to allow accurate description of any Performances that may happen in the future. Similarly the Framework eschews value judgements: it is for the readers to decide if they find Performances to be not-ringing, to be silly, or to be unworthy for any other reason. The Framework does not rank ringing in any order-of-worth, or find anything so distantly outside the boundary of ringing that it should not be contemplated, or published if reported.

(6) Appendix I M 3 d) A states “The framework therefore *doesn’t cover* ringing by pressing a key on a keyboard, and/or having a computer ring some of the bells.” and then goes on to say “performances these cases 6.C.2 o) applies” The term *doesn’t cover* doesn’t, therefore, have its natural meaning. It follows that there is no effective boundary around what the Framework *does cover*. …

(7) And there is the irony. It is precisely this grey area of pressing a key on a keyboard, and using computery to connect ringers together, that has become popular because of the Accursed Virus. And despite there already being a catch-all to have these Performances reported accurately, it is this form of ringing that has set off version 2. Separate comments highlight the ambitions mentioned in Version 1 for Version 2 work, almost all of which hasn’t been accomplished….

(8) The Ringing Styles amendment is an elegant way to describe Accursed-Virus ringing. And having done it that way, we ought to be including in the list all the conceivable Ringing Styles, in much the same way that there was no particular interest in Jump Change ringing, but there was specific provision for it. Separate comments expand on these.

(9) Somewhere along these Ringing Styles, the consensus of Ringers will be that they should not be included as too far from mainstream ringing. But that’s not how the Framework is supposed to be developed: it doesn’t limit itself to current ringers’ opinions, despite the arguments in the paper (separate comments) telling us the opinions of ringers on how much to ring to name a method.

(10) The CC not only publishes the Framework, but also its own analyses of Peals and Quarter Peals. In the role of leadership of Ringers (so ably exercised during the Accursed Virus), it shouldn’t be seen as speaking with forked tongue. If there is a boundary for one function, it should be consistent for the other, and in any case the Council would not wish to find itself debating the inclusion or not of particular Performances.

(11) A change-of-course would be an improvement. The boundary could be closed-down to a view closer to the historic boundaries of ringing, with a commitment to expand it if there is sufficient actual performances to justify the consideration, and hence taking account of the views of the ringing community as a body. For example fifty thousand rows of the innovation, including (say) fifty different ringers involved would trigger consideration of expansion. Just a thought.

Keyboard style suddenly became popular as a result of pandemic restrictions and the availability of platforms such as Ringing Room. Giving this style its own category, alongside towerbell style and handbell style, facilitates analysis of method ringing performances as these three styles cover virtually all performances that are currently being rung. The extent to which keyboard ringing continues to be performed after the pandemic passes remains, of course, to be seen, and it's possible that other styles of method ringing may become popular in the future. We can amend the style categories in the future as the need arises.

Jump Change Notation

(1) “Version 1 of the Framework recognised jump changes as an alternative way of traversing between rows, but it didn’t provide any standards for notating jump changes. Appendix A (Place Notation) has now been extended with our proposed standard for notating jump changes. “

(2) Compared with the rest of the Framework this proposed addition uses as many words and as much brainpower as the whole of the Fundamentals of Method Ringing …

(3) … and is wholly unnecessary, given that we have a readily available notation immediately to hand, already used and understood by mathematicians …

(4) … which is to use the notation for a Row (maybe 32165478) and use it as a *transposition* to define the (Jump) Change.

(5) It would be useful to compare the proposed notation for all the defined Jump methods

Appendix A.B allows for this -- the full row transposition would be included in square brackets, e.g. [32165478]. But note that Appendix A.B.7 encourages this, for clarity, to be written [321][654]78 since 78 is standard place notation, and there are two separate jumping groups.

However, the above notation is verbose for many jumps that have been used in methods to date, so Appendix A.B also provides a more compact form. E.g. (24) -- meaning the bell in 2nd's place jumps to 4th's place, and the bells in 3rd's and 4th's places both move down a place -- is more compact than specifying [134265].

Odds and Ends

(1) The Framework should be the guidance for everything that is submitted as a Performance to BellBoard: if not, then from where do we have the information to assess what was rung …

(2) … any why would we say that the ringers involved in the Performances are unworthy of having the attention of the Framework for their efforts …

(3) ...and that would need to encompass Tolling performances and (see other separate comments about) Call Changes.

(4) The RW article about not covering Call Changes argues about Call Changes in the Cornish tradition as a separate ringing tradition. That may be right (or not), but the question here is the Performances rung primarily in the rest of the country by ordinary ringers who need to be encouraged into seeing that the Ringing theory inside the Framework is relevant to them.

(5) We need to further explore the boundaries to understand how the rules for the Framework development actually work …

(6) If there is some human intellectual effort in a performance, then if that justifies the reporting of the Performance in the mind of the performers, then we should accept it for what it is: a Performance that is understandable under the terms of the Framework, and is therefore published at least on BellBoard …

(7) … so that would include the phantom (computer) ringers, and hence the conductor only if that was the only human input (calling the bobs for the phantoms) …

(8) … and if only the composer, maybe just then the Go to start them off …

(9) ...and still naming the new methods in the Performance.

(10) We include in the Framework provisions for simulated sound: that’s just internal beeps inside a computer analysable as a waveform, so maybe the waveform in itself is sufficient … and if that why not other output to show the different bells weaving their way around …

(11) … hence the colours of Braiding Rainbows, which is a system of defining the paths of, say 800 bells ringing Cambridge or Plain Bob, or any other Method. All the regular methods with bells hunting up and down look much the same on 1280 bells: here is Cambridge: and a fractal feel to (a reasonable extension of) Brampton

We don't view the Framework as needing to support all performances posted on BellBoard. We continue to think that if the ringing community believes there is a need for something similar for call change ringing (and tolling, and firing, and ringing up & down), it should be documented separately from the Framework for Method Ringing.