[ABC] ABC and the 50 Call Program

[Joe Dehn]

On 10/2/2013 10:00 AM, JERRYSTORY at aol.com wrote:
> Pasted below is the RGV Club 50 and below that the new CL/ACA 50 call 
> program. You can compare the differences, which are minimal but worth 
> discussing.  It would be nice to see these lists meshed into one.  
> Then it's time for all interested participants to focus on ONE 50 call 
> list and begin to start 50 call clubs running parallel with the 
> existing activity.  Those who do not want to change do not have to.  
> No body is suggesting a mandate but rather a consolidated and 
> concentrated effort to rebuild Square Dancing using a new 50 call 
> program.
> The floor is now open for discussion.

As part of investigating doing something along these lines in our area, 
some of us in Santa Clara County, California have taken a detailed look 
at a number of the lists based on this general concept, including the 
two specific lists that you mention.  But in comparing them, we found a 
lot of differences among them, including their size.  The second one you 
mentioned (labeled the "Experimental Condensed Teaching Order") is 
significantly smaller than "Club 50". (So I am not comfortable calling 
them both "50 call lists", even if they are both based on the same idea 
of having something smaller and faster to teach than Mainstream.)

You can find our detailed comparison and related commentary at:

   http://www.dehnbase.org/sd/gdp/list-comparisons.html

And if by "meshing" them into one you mean merging the two lists, to 
produce something that includes all the calls in each, that would 
produce something even bigger than "Club 50", since while ECTO is 
significantly smaller it isn't actually a subset.  But perhaps by "mesh" 
you mean including some but not all of the calls from each, to end up 
with something of an intermediate size.

Given how many different people seem to be working in this general 
direction, my own view is that trying to come up with any sort of 
universal "40 call" or "50 call" list isn't all that urgent -- it is a 
good goal to have in mind, but not something on which we need to focus 
too much at this time.  More important, I think, is for people to 
experiment with actually using these lists to teach faster and build up 
a larger dancer population, and any list smaller than Mainstream could 
be used for such experiments.  If and when somebody is clearly and 
consistently getting good results, we can then all look and see whether 
that success seems to be a result of the details of the list they are 
using or of something else (how they schedule, how they teach, how they 
recruit, etc.).  And to whatever extent it appears to be due to the 
specifics of the list, I'm sure others will then consider following that 
lead.

In the meantime, I would much rather see two, three, or even more small 
lists all "competing" for this role and all contributing to growth in 
various geographic areas, than for everybody to be waiting around until 
there is agreement on which of these lists is best!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://all8.com/pipermail/abc_all8.com/attachments/20131002/7efe9dff/attachment-0002.html>