[CPN] Vote on the Cellinese, Mishler, and Baum proposal

    David Tank dtank at uidaho.edu
    Mon Apr 16 18:07:28 EDT 2012 
    Hello all, 

I received votes from all but one, and the result is an almost unanimous decision to reject the CMB proposal (10 reject to 1 accept).  Following the process proposed by Kevin, we now need to vote on:

1) Reject and end discussion, or
2) Reject but identify aspects that could be incorporated into the code

Because everyone has had plenty of time to think about this, this should be a quick vote - please email me with your decision ASAP, but by Friday, April 20 at the latest.

Best,
Dave


On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:35 AM, David Tank wrote:

> Ok - I am fine with modifying this to Kevin's suggestion - it will certainly make this more clear.  So, we will first vote on accept or reject, then proceed from there. 
>  
> Please send your vote to ACCEPT or REJECT the CMB proposal to me ( dtank at uidaho.edu 
) by Wednesday, April 11, keeping in mind that if we choose to reject the proposal, you will have the opportunity to vote on whether to end the discussion or to identify aspects of the proposal that could be incorporated. 
>  
> 
     
> David C. Tank 
> Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium 
> University of Idaho 
> 208.885.7033 
>  dtank at uidaho.edu 
 
>  http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ 
 
>  
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Cantino, Philip wrote: 
>  
>> I agree with Kevin.  This does make more sense than our original voting proposal. 
>> Phil 
>>  
>>  
>> On Apr 4, 2012, at 2:01 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote: 
>>  
>>> Hi David, 
>>>  
>>> I want to suggest a slight modification or elaboration of Phil's and my proposal about the vote.  Because 2 and 3 are both reject, it doesn't seem fair to count them separately as part of a three-way vote.  Therefore, I suggest counting the votes in two steps:  1) accept versus reject, then, if reject wins, 2) reject and end discussion versus reject but identify aspects that could be incorporated. 
>>>  
>>> Kevin 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On 4/4/12 1:35 PM, "David C. Tank" < dtank at uidaho.edu 
> wrote: 
>>>  
>>> Hi all, 
>>>  
>>> Now that we have all of the comments that were submitted either via the listserv or to David M., I'd like to proceed with a vote.  Given that there were no other suggestions on how to proceed, I will take Kevin and Phil's suggestion and first ask you to vote on one of the following three options regarding the Cellinese, Mishler, and Baum (CMB) proposal: 
>>>  
>>> 1) Adopt CMB in its entirety 
>>>  
>>> 2) Reject CMB in its entirety and end discussion 
>>>  
>>> 3) Reject CMB but subsequently try to find aspects of CMB that we agree should be implemented 
>>>  
>>> Best, 
>>> Dave 
>>>  
>>> 
     
>>> David C. Tank 
>>> Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium 
>>> University of Idaho 
>>> 208.885.7033 
>>>  dtank at uidaho.edu 
 
>>>  http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ 
 
>>>  
>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:36 AM, Cantino, Philip wrote: 
>>>  
>>> David (M.), I do hope you can send the comments you have received to the CPN next week.  In fairness to Nico, Brent and David B., we should try to make a decision soon on their proposal. 
>>>  
>>> The bylaws don't provide any guidance on how the CPN should structure voting on complex proposals.  A simple up or down vote on the whole proposal doesn't seem appropriate because it incorporates several distinct ideas and many detailed changes in individual rules and recommendations.  Based on our discussion to date, it seems likely that most of us as individuals agree with certain elements of the proposal but disagree with others.  Kevin and I have been talking about how the CPN might address the Cellinese, Mishler and Baum (CMB) proposal, and we suggest the following procedure: 
>>>  
>>> David Tank (as Chairperson) could ask the members to vote by email for one of the following three options: 
>>> 1) Adopt CMB in its entirety 
>>> 2) Reject CMB in its entirety and end discussion 
>>> 3) Reject CMB but subsequently try to find aspects of CMB that we agree should be implemented 
>>>  
>>> If option 3 wins, a subsequent discussion and vote will be needed on specific elements of CMB.  For example, the majority of the CPN may agree that the definition of "species" in the glossary should be broadened to be neutral with regard to species concepts.  Some other important elements of the CMB proposal are prohibiting the use of species as specifiers, permitting specific epithets to be converted to clade names, eliminating all use of the word "species" in the code, and the CMB mechanism for naming clades (all clades, not just those approximating species in composition) to eliminate homonymy.  There may be additional elements that others of you will add to this list. 
>>>  
>>> Rather than have the CPN try to draft the wording for what could turn out to be many changes in the code, we think it will work best for the CPN to select elements of the CMB proposal that the committee would like to incorporate in the code, then ask Kevin and me to draft a set of revisions, which the CPN would then discuss and vote on.  Before voting, there would be an opportunity for the CPN to fine-tune the wording that Kevin and I propose.  This is the procedure we have followed for many other changes in the code and it has worked well. 
>>>  
>>> I agree with Dave T. that the first item of business is for us to decide how to structure the vote--whether through the mechanism proposed here or by some other mechanism that someone else suggests.  This decision could apply equally well to voting on any complex proposal and is independent of the details of the CMB proposal.  The decision can therefore can be made before David sends us the few additional comments that were posted on the website.  So I urge members to comment soon on this question.  Do you like the mechanism proposed here?  If not, please suggest an alternative. 
>>>  
>>> Phil 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:09 PM, David Marjanovic wrote: 
>>>  
>>> There have been several weeks of silence on the discussion re: the 
>>> Cellinese et al. species proposal, and I believe it is time to proceed 
>>> to a vote. 
>>>  
>>> Although it's true that I haven't received any comments for several weeks (and very few, I must say, before that! Few people, it seems, ever visit the ISPN website!), a vote is not yet possible because I still haven't posted the comments I've got. 
>>>  
>>> I hope to have Internet at home next week. When that works, it'll be much easier to browse or search my e-mails; then I'll post the comments, you can read them, and we can vote in short order. 
>>>  
>>> At this point I would like suggestions from you on how a vote should be 
>>> structured. 
>>>  
>>> Is there nothing about that in the bylaws? (...I'll have to check.) 
>>>  
>>> the Cellinese et al. point of view is in press. 
>>>  http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent 
 
>>>  
>>> Good. 
>>> 
     
>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
     
>>> CPN mailing list 
>>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>>  
>>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
     
>> CPN mailing list 
>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
> 
     
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120416/13659c85/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: