[CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
Walter Joyce walter.g.joyce at gmail.comMon May 21 01:39:47 EDT 2012
- Previous message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Next message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I am fine with the proposed mechanism as well. Walter On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu > wrote: > We seem to be converging on a preferred mechanism, at least among the > people who have commented. If there are others on the CPN who disagree > with the general approach that Kevin P's suggested, or who want to propose > an alternative, it would be helpful if you would say so soon--I suggest by > the end of the weekend. In referring to Kevin P's approach, I am also > including my suggestion that each of us may choose to submit our own > comments either in their entirety or as a summary. > > Phil > > > On May 17, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Kevin Padian wrote: > > > I agree with what KdQ says here. That's why I proposed it. > > > > CPN member should be aware that outside the small group of people who are > > mainly doing the heavy lifting and some decision making, there are some > > perceptions of how the CPN is working that you may want to consider, just > > to deal with the "hearts and minds" issue. > > > > First, there is the widespread perception that things are moving very > > slowly with PhyloCode, and (as many of you have been surprised to hear), > > many people think the effort is dead. So, by itself, involvement of CBM > > in discussions would not be perceived as slowing the whole process. > > However, I still think that they should be given only one opportunity to > > respond. > > > > Second, everyone involved in the systematic community and PhyloCode is > > aware that the major players know what the other major players think, and > > that on the CPN, it is widely perceived that the deck is stacked. I > don't > > have a problem with that: people can run for office, and the votes tell > > the story. The CBM proposal did stimulate some modification of the code, > > and that is constructive. Also, discussion has been civil, and that is a > > real departure from the systematics wars of several decades ago. This > > will go a long way to win over people. > > > > In my view, continued civil discourse and being magnanimous about > > suggestions will make a good impression on our colleagues. In turn, the > > CPN (in my view) needs to be responsive to the utility and ease of use of > > the code for rank and file workers, or it will not be of great use. -- > kp > > > > > > > > > >> I don't think it is appropriate to allow Brent et al. (or anyone else > >> outside of the CPN) to be involved in an open discussion of what parts > of > >> the proposal are to be incorporated into the PhyloCode. That is > certainly > >> not the way that things work with the Zoological and Botanical codes, > and > >> it would seem to risk dragging out the process. The decisions about > what > >> to include should be determined solely by the CPN, whose members were > >> elected specifically for that purpose. Note that the model proposed by > >> Kevin Padian did not involve an open discussion with the authors of the > >> proposal (whether via the listserve or the ISPN forum). What he > suggested > >> was that the CPN should first reach a consensus "among ourselves" about > >> which elements to incorporate, and then send those points to CBM for > >> comments. In addition, CBM would comment only once and not be involved > in > >> further internal discussions within the CPN. I don't have a problem > with > >> his model. > >> > >> Kevin > >> > >> > >> On 5/15/12 2:23 PM, "David C. Tank" < dtank at uidaho.edu > wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I think that Brent's request to be involved in the discussion is more > than > >> fair - especially if we are trying to find parts of the proposal to > >> include etc. As of now, there has been relatively little discussion > >> about what to include - the new definition of species being one and the > >> revision to Art 21 by David M (see email from May 11). Both of these > will > >> need to be voted on if there is no more discussion, but at this point I > >> feel that it would be best to get the discussion including the authors > >> going first; this may in fact produce additional revisions. > >> > >> At this point, Phil, and Michel have expressed support for Kevin P's > >> suggested procedure, while Kevin deQ has suggested an alternative > >> following the ICZN model; both suggestions are in the thread below. > >> > >> As a third option, how do people feel about using the ISPN forum on the > >> society webpage for our discussions - this one and future - and the CPN > >> listserve to vote? This seems like it would facilitate keeping track of > >> CPN topics and discussion points much more efficiently than email > threads, > >> and would allow for the community to see - and participate in - CPN > >> discussions. For the purposes of including the authors in this > >> discussion, those that have weighed in on the discussion of the CBM > >> proposal could post their summaries, David M. could post outside > comments, > >> and anyone (the authors of the proposal included) would be able to > provide > >> comments/participate in the discussion prior to the CPN vote. > >> > >> In an attempt to keep this moving, I would like to hear from the rest of > >> the CPN either in support of one of the suggested mechanisms for > including > >> the authors in this discussion, or an alternative. It would be great to > >> have this settled this week, so we can inform the authors of this by > >> Friday (one week from their request). > >> > >> Thanks and best, > >> Dave > >> > >> On May 13, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Michel Laurin wrote: > >> > >> > >> I agree too. > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> On 13/05/12 21:18, Cantino, Philip wrote: > >> I prefer Kevin Padian's suggested mechanism. The problem with sending > all > >> of our comments to the proposal authors is that some of the longer > >> messages are no longer relevant. For example, I don't think it would be > >> productive to send Nico et al. the lengthy counterproposal that I sent > to > >> the listserv on Jan. 15. Much of it was an attempt to find compromise > >> wording I could live with for particular articles, but in many of these > >> cases I prefer the current wording. Since the CPN has already voted > >> overwhelmingly not to accept the entire Cellinese et al. proposal, most > of > >> my suggestions in the Jan. 15 message are no longer relevant. The same > >> may also apply to some of the long messages sent by other CPN members. > I > >> like Kevin P's suggestion that those of us who wish to may prepare a > >> summary of our objections to the Cellinese et al. proposal. Mine would > >> draw from my previous comments but would be a lot briefer and more > >> succinct. If this mechanism is adopted, I would hope that! > >> everyone who was actively involved in the discussion would send > >> something to the proposal authors, though it might either be their > >> previous comments as originally submitted or an abbreviated summary, > >> whatever that person prefers. > >> > >> > >> I do think that all comments from people who are not CPN members should > be > >> sent to the proposal authors. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> > >> > >> From: "de Queiroz, Kevin" < deQueirozK at si.edu > > >> > >> > >> Date: May 12, 2012 12:10:12 PM EDT > >> > >> > >> To: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu >, Committee on Phylogenetic > >> Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu > > >> > >> > >> Subject: RE: [CPN] Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think that it is appropriate for the proposers to be part of the > >> CPN discussion that leads to votes (unless they are already members of > the > >> CPN). If we take the ICZN as a model, after a proposal is submitted, it > >> is published in the BZN and there is a chance for public comment, which > is > >> also published in the BZN. I believe the proposers are allowed to be > part > >> of that discussion (point and counter-point). However, when it comes to > >> the vote of the Commission, the proposers are not involved unless they > are > >> already committee members. If we were to follow that model, we could > post > >> on the ICZN website all of the comments (from both members and > non-members > >> of the CPN), both pro and con, provided that the authors consent. I > give > >> my consent to post my comments. > >> > >> Kevin > >> > >> > >> On May 12, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Kevin Padian wrote: > >> > >> Rather than sift through previous emails, some of which may have been > >> intended only for internal discussion, would it be better if individual > >> members elected to send Brent, Nico and David a summary of their > previous > >> comments? > >> > >> After all the issue of accepting their proposal is closed and there is > no > >> use in further debate and cluttering up everyone's mailbox ... > >> particularly if the committee wants to consider certain amendments now. > >> That would make a clean distinction, it seems to me. > >> > >> I agree with Phil about including the authors of the proposal in > >> discussion before a final decision is reached. Could I suggest another > >> way to do that? We might discuss this among ourselves for a while and > >> identify general consensus (if it exists) on the proposal. These points > >> could be summarized for the authors, who would then be asked to respond > >> (one hopes in no more than a few pages max). Then the committee could > >> discuss those points and make a final decision. Just a suggestion; it > >> might be a bit cleaner. -- kp > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu ] On > >> Behalf Of Cantino, Philip [ cantino at ohio.edu ] > >> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:55 AM > >> To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature > >> Subject: [CPN] Fwd: Decision on proposal with respect to species > >> > >> This seems like a fair request. If the CPN agrees, I can easily add > >> Brent, Nico and David to the listserv for the purpose of this discussion > >> and then unsubscribe them after we are done discussing their proposal. > >> If we agree to this, though, I think Dave (as CPN chair) will need to be > >> assertive about cutting off discussion of particular points if it > becomes > >> clear that the pros and cons of that point are being stated repeatedly > by > >> the same people on each side. Otherwise, progress will slow to a > snail's > >> pace and everyone's time will be wasted. > >> > >> I'm not sure how best to give the proposal authors access to the points > >> that led to our initial decision. This relates to the following in > >> Dave's message yesterday: > >> "Also, I wonder if we should post several of the responses and or > >> snippets of the discussion for the authors and rest of the society to > >> see? For example, I feel that Dick Olmstead's review that he shared > with > >> the committee, David Hillis' comments, and Kevin's response do a very > >> good job of articulating the position of the CPN, and it seems like the > >> authors and the society should be aware of these." The messages that > >> Dave suggests are good choices, but I also suggest that we include my > >> explanation of why I object strongly to permitting the conversion of > >> specific epithets to clade names (i.e., the elimination of Art. 10.9); > >> this is in a relatively short message that I sent to the CPN on January > >> 11. Other members of the CPN may also want to include points made in > >> their messages too. Perhaps each of us should choose particular points > >> we would like to share with the authors of the proposal, and in addition > >> let's send them David Hillis' comments. > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> From: Brent Mishler > >> < bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu <mailto: bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu >> > >> Subject: Re: [CPN] Decision on proposal with respect to species > >> Date: May 12, 2012 12:19:50 AM EDT > >> To: David Tank < dtank at uidaho.edu <mailto: dtank at uidaho.edu >> > >> Cc: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature > >> < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu >>, David Baum > >> < dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu <mailto: dbaum at facstaff.wisc.edu >>, Nico > Cellinese > >> < ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu <mailto: ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu >> > >> > >> Hi Dave, > >> > >> Thanks for the news; it is better to hear it directly. I know there is > >> not a lot of precedent for CPN procedure; I think we were the first > >> "outside" proposal you had to deal with. So I'd like to suggest a > >> procedural improvement: at some point it would be fair for us to have a > >> chance to reply to points made by CPN members. So far it has been like > a > >> debate where only one side is allowed to actually debate. The people > >> with vested interest in the current treatment of species in the > >> Phylocode, Kevin and Phil, are in the debate and none of the three of us > >> are. > >> > >> Just a thought, > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Brent > >> > >> > >> On May 11, 2012, at 7:17 PM, David Tank wrote: > >> > >> Dear Nico, Brent, and David, > >> > >> Thank you for your thoughtful proposal for changes to the PhyloCode with > >> respect to species. The CPN has voted to reject the proposal as an > >> entire entity but also decided to continue discussion to determine if > >> there are elements of your proposal that we would like to incorporate in > >> the next revision of the draft code. I apologize on behalf of the CPN > >> for not having informed you promptly about the initial vote, an > oversight > >> that was related to the fact that we are still discussing elements of > the > >> proposal and thus view the decision-making process as still in progress. > >> At the conclusion of this discussion, we will inform you of the outcome > >> as well as posting the CPN decision on the news section of the ISPN > >> website. > >> > >> All the best, > >> Dave > >> _________________________________ > >> David C. Tank > >> Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium > >> University of Idaho > >> 208.885.7033 > >> dtank at uidaho.edu <mailto: dtank at uidaho.edu > > >> http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ > >> > >> > >> > >> ********************************************************** > >> Brent D. Mishler > >> Professor, Department of Integrative Biology > >> Director, University and Jepson Herbaria > >> University of California, Berkeley > >> Mailing address: > >> UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY > >> UNIVERSITY AND JEPSON HERBARIA > >> 1001 VALLEY LIFE SCIENCES BLDG # 2465 > >> BERKELEY, CA 94720-2465 USA > >> Office: 4164 VLSB > >> Phone: (510) 642-6810 [office and lab] > >> FAX: (510) 643-5390 > >> E-mail: > >> bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu <mailto: bmishler at calmail.berkeley.edu > > >> WWW: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/people/mishler.html > >> ********************************************************** > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CPN mailing list > >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto: 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > > Kevin Padian > > Department of Integrative Biology & > > Museum of Paleontology > > University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 > > 510-642-7434 > > http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Dr. Walter Joyce Institut für Geowissenschaften University of Tübingen Sigwartstr. 10 72070 Tübingen +49 (0) 7071 - 2978930 walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/arbeitsgruppen/palaeobiologie/biogeologie/people/dr-walter-g-joyce.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120521/c188634a/attachment-0001.html
- Previous message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Next message: [CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CPN mailing list