Ringing Forums

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

II never saw direct membership as a means to increase funding. It has its one merits. However if/when we move to direct membership that will have to be factored into any discussion of finding, notably the balance between corporate funding (from societies) and individual funding.

I wonder how someone who is 'individualistic and competitive' would react to being asked about it. People do not fit into neat stereotypes anyway so it might be better to try to find out what individuals feel they need and try to highlight aspects of ringing that match. That might go beyond personality types into other things. For example someone with a mathematical bent might find theoretical aspects such as composition, port or extension intersting and stimulating.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol: — John de Overa

And that a bellringing program was run on the Manchester Mk1 computer some time in the early 1950s. You can find the story online. Search for terms like 'shaggy dog story' 'Brian Price'. I might even have mentioned it when I wrote up Brian's life. If I did you can find it on: https://history.cccbr.org.uk

Just spotted a typo - missing word. In case it wasn't obvious I meant making a donation to the fund.

As a matter of interest, at last weeks AGM of ODG, when donations were being voted on, the Bell Fund trustees spoke against making a to the fund because it was not needed. By way of background I should say that no money that goes into the ODBF is ever spent because it is a capital fund, and only earnings generated by the capital go into the grant fund, which can be spent, but which currently has more than the foreseeable needs.

I'm sure there are many clubs who pay for some things and rely on volunteers for others, but that wasn't my point. I was questioning the suggestion that paying people to do things stopped an organisation fromm being 'bottom up', and I can't see why it should. The same people are making the decisions whether they are telling the contractor how often to cut the grass or twisting arms to find volunteers to do it more often.

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.