[CPN] extension on time to review and discuss proposals

    Graham, Sean swgraham at mail.ubc.ca
    Sun Nov 17 05:59:27 EST 2013 
    I vote 'Aye'!

________________________________
From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
[ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
] on behalf of Cantino, Philip [ cantino at ohio.edu 
]
Sent: November-16-13 6:09 AM
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Subject: [CPN] Fwd: extension on time to review and discuss proposals

Dear CPN members,

At this point, I am calling for a vote on the current set of proposals.  We have already received votes of approval from Jim, Andy, Miecz, Nico, and Michel.  I vote yes of course, and I assume that Kevin does since he and I proposed the changes.  It would be good for Sean and David to say whether they approve of moving ahead with the changes with the understanding that Kevin and I will consider the specific suggestions they have made and report back to all of you.  There are three CPN members who have not commented on the proposals.  Please vote by Wednesday (Nov. 20) if you intend to.  Thank you.

Regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: Fwd: extension on time to review and discuss proposals
Date: November 15, 2013 10:20:20 AM EST
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>

Dear CPN members,

Today is the last day for comments on this set of proposals.  I have seen responses from Jim Doyle, Miecz Wolsan, Sean Graham, Andy Anderson and David Marjanovic.  If other people have comments before we vote, please send them today.

Because some wording changes have been suggested by two of you, but Kevin and I may not have time to discuss them right away, the approach I would like to take (if there are no objections) is to go ahead and call a vote with the understanding that Kevin and I will subsequently respond to the points Sean and David (and any others who comment today) have made.  These points can be discussed on this listserv until consensus is reached or, if necessary, another vote is called on just those points.  That way, I can go ahead and incorporate all the changes on which there is no disagreement.  I'd rather not hold up the vote on things that everyone agrees on.

Phil


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Date: November 7, 2013 9:01:01 AM EST
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: extension on time to review and discuss proposals

Dear CPN members,

I have received a request that we delay the vote on these proposals for a week.  This is fine with me.  It is important that everyone have enough time to review and discuss the proposed changes, and people's schedules and other commitments vary.  I will call for a vote on Friday, Nov. 15 unless discussion is still in progress at that time.

Regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: additions to proposed modifications
Date: November 6, 2013 1:07:40 PM EST
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>

Dear CPN members,

In the attached version of the code, Kevin and I have added several other changes that were not in the version I sent you on Nov. 1.  Some are in response to comments sent on Sept. 11 by David Marjanovic and the rest originated with us.

The newly proposed modifications are highlighted in yellow so that you can easily find them (the are in Principle 6, Note 6.1A.1, Note 9.14A.2 Example 1, Rec. 11C, Art. 17.1, Art. 17.5, Art. 20.4 Example 1, Note 20.4.1 Example 1, the Glossary entries for "branch" and "node", and Appendix C).  All are minor, so I don't anticipate it will take you long to check them.

I am surprised not to have received any comments on the changes I sent Nov. 1.  I hope this means that everyone is comfortable with the proposals.  On Friday, I will call for a vote unless there is discussion ongoing at that time.  The vote will be on the newly proposed changes (those highlighted in yellow) as well as those I sent on Nov. 1 (which are shown with Track Changes but without highlighting).

Regards,
Phil




Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Date: November 1, 2013 10:03:31 AM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: Fwd: proposed modifications of PhyloCode

Dear CPN members,

Just a reminder: If you have comments, they should be sent to this listserv by next Friday (Nov. 8) so that there is an opportunity for discussion before I call for a vote.  No one has commented to date.

Regards,
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" < cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>>
Date: October 25, 2013 1:10:46 PM EDT
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
>>
Subject: proposed modifications of PhyloCode

Dear CPN members,

Over the past three-plus years since version 4c was posted online, Kevin and I have come to an agreement on a variety of modifications, some of them originating with one of us and some originating with other members of the CPN.  There is no central theme to the proposals, as there has been for other sets of modifications the CPN has considered in the past two years (e.g., rules dealing with species; expansion of the section describing the kinds of definitions).

The attached document consists of the most recently approved version of the code (i.e., including the modifications approved by the CPN last month), to which we have added the newly proposed changes using the Track Changes function of MS-Word.  If there is anyone who does not have MS-Word or an equivalent package that allows you to see the tracked changes, please let me know.  The Preface and Index are not included in this document.

The proposed changes occur in the Preamble, Articles 6, 7, 9 (beginning with 9.8), 10, 11, 12.2, 14, 15.11.1 Example 1, Rec. 17.3A, 19, 20.8, 21, 22, Glossary, Appendix A, and Appendix C.  Although there are many changes, the vast majority of them are minor (e.g., updating the abbreviation for the botanical code in umpteen places; clarifications that don't affect content, additional parenthetical references to other parts of the code).   There are a few more substantive changes proposed, but we anticipate that most and perhaps all of them will be uncontroversial.

Don't be concerned about formatting errors in this document (e.g., page breaks in inappropriate places; use of different fonts); these will be fixed later.

We don't anticipate that it will take you very long to review these proposed changes because most are not substantive.  Two weeks should be more than adequate unless some of you are traveling without email access during this period.  I suggest Friday, Nov. 8 as the target date for comments.  If this is difficult for some of you, or if discussion on some points is still ongoing on that date, we can extend the deadline.

Thank you, all.

Best regards,
Phil






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20131117/7fd54624/attachment.html
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: