Ringing Forums

I don't think a village cricket team would become less grass roots because it paid someone to cut the grass, or paint the pavilion.

Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me. — John de Overa

Agreed

membermojo's docs and it doesn't seem to support anything that looks like it could be used for multi-level membership, although some other similar systems do. — John de Overa

I just spent some time looking round the Tendenci site. There's a lot of it but it does tick a lot of useful boxes. It does support structured organisations (which they call Chapters) enabling them to manage a lot of things away from the centre. It is open source so you aren't locked in to a proprietary service provider. It can be hosted on any server: your own a third party of your choice (or theirs if you prefer) so you aren't locked into a single service provider. And (given that we are talking about ringers) there is a free version available. I didn't explore everything, but as far as I could see it would provide all that a large, multi-district ringing society, or a group of ringing societies would need.

Interest9ing. ODG u8sed to have 'Probationers' and 'Change ringers', the latter being able to ring a 120, but abandoned the distinction after the First World War. Looks like Yorkshire is doing the same a century later.

That’s a suggestion for a different model from the original question posed — Lucy Chandhial

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean it's not worth asking. The idea that different ringing tribes should share their membership management isn't exactly a trivial admin tweak to the status quo.

to understand the significance we need to know what an Assiciate Member was. Was it a non ringer? Was it a ringer who had not yet passed some competence test (eg ringing a 120)? Or what?

I looked quite hard a year or two ago to find systems that were designed to handle structured organisations that operate as a federation of many parts, and I could only find one that might be affordable for ringers (ie excluding those aimed at corporate use) and that was LoveAdmin, as mentioned in my op. If there are others now it would be interesting to compare them.

Thanks for the explanation. This is one of the ropes that were supplied when our bells were restored in 2004 - not sure the source. Despite very limited use the sally failed and I cut off the top to reuse on a good one that didn't have a Marlow top.

it may well be scalable, but that's not quite the right question. The question you should ask is whether it can be partitioned, so that different societies can manage their own membership separately. You could ask the same question of a large society (like ODG, which has 15 branches).
The answer is no. The consequence is that whoever has access to manage the data would have access to it all.
LoveAdmin can be segmented to handle structured organisations, and is used by at least one ringing society, but it has a different charging model.
ODG is in fact intending to use MemberMojo, and I am sure it will be made to work, but I doubt it will prove as useful as a system that could support separately managed parts of an organisation.
As for different societies using it, that would be a step too far.

by 'booming out' do you mean that. it is too loud, in which case a lighter clapper might help, regardless of material.
If it's not too loud but qualitatively different then maybe it is a quality of the bell rather than the clapper, especially since you say it has always been like it.
Either way, it would seem sensible to seek professional advice.

That's the same link you posted a couple of weeks ago. Did you mean to post a different one?

A lot of those Hamiltonian paths are likely to be not asymmetric single lead methods that aren't nice to ring.
I assume you got the figure from the article on the web by polster & Ross, but I don't remember them using diagrams.
To see how the diagram is derived you might be interested in: https://jaharrison.me.uk/Ringing/RingingShapes/.

flightiness is more about the rope than the bell.

Angels and pins come to mind. Anything complex will have edge cases.
Think from a practical perspective:
"Go Great Massingham"
If you are ringing four you don't need telling that it's Minimus, and at that point you probably aren't interested in the class.
Now compare with:
"Go -1234-1234-14.34.14-1234-12,34".
Really?
If names weren't useful humanity wouldn't have invented them.

they could just provide a list of the rows that were rung — PeterScott

They could but that would not be very convenient for either them or anyone reading about it.
The aim of the Framework, or any naming system, is to enable more compact description without loss of accuracy.

interesting criticism of DCMS for misinterpreting the convention by assuming that beyond creating a UK inventory it doesn't imply any commitment to actually do anything to safeguard cultural heritage, just to make people in the UK aware, and that it doesn't intend to submit anything to UNESCO (supposedly 'for the first few years').

there's nothing wrong with ringing this however I'm surprised to be seeing accepted as a method. — J Martin Rushton

There is indeed nothing wrong with ringing it, so if someone does ring it how should they describe it?
The rationale behind the development of the Framework for Method Ringing was to provide the tools to describe what people choose to ring, rather than to determine that some things were legitimate, and by implication others were not.
The aim was that from a report of the ringing it would be clear what was rung, with any aspect that would not reasonably be assumed made explicit. Anyone who wanted to form a judgment about it would be free to do so, but judgements would not be centrally imposed.
This was extensively discussed and publicised at the time, several years ago now.

if they were competent ringers they could continue, but learners should stop — J Martin Rushton

I've not heard that, but a competent ringer will certainly impose less severe stresses on the body than someone less competent. But that's not the same as learner v non-learner. On the one hand some established ringers ring in a way that could put sudden extreme stresses on joints and muscles and on the other a responsive student who has Ben coached from the start to develop a smooth efficient style could probably moderate the risk of over stress.

When I was young age wasn't an issue. We were encouraged as youngsters and older ringers were respected for their experience. But that was at a time when the Exercise had a younger profile and was growing.
Things are different now, we have a much older age profile, numbers are falling and there are societal barriers to youth recruitment. We need to think about age. So why do we keep making it into a divisive issue?
It's a fact that on average some things slow down with age. But individuals vary a lot, and in many cases more than the 'average' effect. There's nothing special about any particular age, 62, 32, 82, or whatever, they are in a continuum, with a lot of variation at each one.
It's a fact that the age profile of ringers has become skewed to the point of probably being unsustainable so we ought to correct that with more young recruits 'on average'. But that doesn't mean that a promising ringer of any age shouldn't be recruited, taught, encouraged and developed.
The example quoted earlier proves the point, with an older person making faster progress than a younger one. And I once taught a 50 year old who took half the time that her son did to get to the same stage.
It's also true that a lifelong ringer who starts earlier will ring for more years than one who starts later. But sadly a lot of ringers don't become lifelong ringers, so at what ever age we recruit we should be trying to attract and encourage those who will become enthusiastic and committed.

I too am wary of putting personal information online. If you put your name, address, email, phone number and birthday in the public domain I suspect those who commit online crime, identity theft, fraud etc. will be delighted — Alan C

Yes, but that's not a reason to be fearful of putting anything online. The aim should be to provide what is useful for communication. For officers our branch website shows photo, name, generic email and phone number and for tower correspondents it shows generic email and phone number. The personal information is subject to consent but hardly anyone opts out.