WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Federal Reserve officials considered going back to a calendar date to end asset purchases or setting a total size to its bond buys, according to minutes from the October meeting released Wednesday that suggested the central bank is looking for ways to exit or at least slow down the controversial program in fairly short order.

By a 9-to-1 vote, the Fed on Oct. 30 continued the $85 billion-per-month asset-purchase program, otherwise known as QE3, and made little changes to the language in the statement. But those few changes obscured that behind closed doors, officials were throwing all sorts of ideas up against the wall.

Minutes from the Oct. 29-30 meeting showed that officials considered reducing the size of the asset-purchase program even “before an unambiguous further improvement in the [labor-market] outlook was apparent.” And “many members” — by members, the Fed is referring to voters — “stressed the data-dependent nature of the current asset purchase program, and some pointed out that, if economic conditions warranted, the committee could decide to slow the pace of purchases at one of its next few meetings.”

U.S. stocks SPX, -1.11% gave up gains after the release of the minutes. See live blog of stock market.

The long end of the bond curve saw diminished interest, as yields on the 10-year Treasury US:10_YEAR rose 7 basis points to 2.78%. The 30-year yield US:30_YEAR gained a full 10 basis points. Bond yields move in the opposite direction to prices.

“The battle lines are clearly drawn, with some at the Fed now itching to scale back QE unless the incoming data are awful; the cumulative rise in payrolls since QE3 started is enough for these members,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a note to clients. “We think [Janet] Yellen is not persuaded of this view but it will be hard for the doves if November payrolls are strong.”

The view reflected in the minutes was apparent in addresses over the last 24 hours from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, the latter of whom said a December reduction in bond purchases was “on the table.”

Participants generally “expressed reservation” about a simple mechanical rule to adjust the pace of asset purchases to a single variable such as the unemployment rate or payroll employment. “Some” participants said it might be better to have an even simpler plan, to announce a total size of remaining purchases or a timetable for winding down the program.

“A calendar-based step-down would run counter to the data-dependent, state-contingent nature of the current asset purchase program, but it would be easier to communicate and might help the public separate the committee’s purchase program from its policy for the federal funds rate and the overall stance of policy,” the minutes said.

The Fed also was eager to clarify or strengthen the forward guidance for rates. “Several” said extra qualitative information could be provided after the 6.5% unemployment rate threshold was actually reached, which by the Fed’s own projections could come next year.

A “couple” wanted to reduce the 6.5% unemployment rate threshold, and a “few” wanted to add that the federal funds rate wouldn’t be raised as long as inflation was projected to run below a given level.

Also on the chalkboard: reducing the interest rate paid on excess reserves, setting up a standing purchase facility for shorter-term Treasury securities or providing term funding through repurchase agreements.

The Fed also discussed how to taper: a “number” said making roughly equal reductions in Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities would be appropriate and easy to communicate, “some others” said Treasury securities should be more aggressively reduced to signal an intention to support the mortgage market, while one participant said trimming MBS first would reduce the potential for distortions in credit allocation.

One other noteworthy event is that the Fed considered whether to discuss the effect of the government shutdown. They opted not to, so as not to “overemphasize the role of the shutdown in the committee’s policy deliberations.”