[CPN] Publication-Related Issues

• Previous message: [CPN] Publication-Related Issues
• Next message: [CPN] Publication-Related Issues
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I don't know that we need more editors.  Phil and I have made substantial progress on the contributions that we are handling, and a lot of the delays are related to authors not revising their contributions in a timely manner.  One thing that might help is if we could hire an assistant for Jacques : ).

Kevin


On 11/16/11 10:43 AM, "David Marjanovic" < david.marjanovic at gmx.at 
> wrote:

In case it matters (I'm not a Council member), I wholeheartedly support
the call for more editors for the Companion Volume. It is evident that
the work is way too much for just three people.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can volunteer myself...

> Dear Colleagues, 
>  
> I am concerned about several issues on which I would like your views. 
> We have a proposal on the table about the rank of species, and we are 
> likely to have others. It seems impractical to try to resolve these 
> things by email. 
I don't understand why. E-mail has several advantages over a meatspace
meeting: it allows us
-- to cite sources and even link to them without further ado;
-- to look everything up and not just what we happen to carry around in
our heads -- off-of-the-top-of-my-head comments are no way to deal with
serious, detailed proposals to amend the PhyloCode;
-- and, more trivially, to "speak" all at the same time but still
"listen" to everyone. This last one would stay an issue even in Skype.

Instead of e-mail, a forum (bulletin board) or even the comments section
of a blog (which is almost the same as a forum) may work at least as
well. The best discussions I have are all on blogs.

My financial situation, and thus ability to attend a meeting even in
Berkeley, may greatly improve by January, but nothing is fixed yet.

> 2. In the intervening time I would suggest circulating a call for 
> proposals in the systematic community that would suggest any changes 
> in the substance or wording of the PhyloCode, prior to its 
> publication; no further changes would be entertained for a period of 
> "x" (x to be determined) years afterward. These proposals would have 
> a deadline at least a month before the meeting. The CPN would 
> consider them at that meeting. 
Fine, if we include a plea to read the entire PhyloCode before writing a
proposal, and a threat that proposals whose authors clearly haven't read
the PhyloCode will be unceremoniously ignored. :-)
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 

• Previous message: [CPN] Publication-Related Issues
• Next message: [CPN] Publication-Related Issues
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]