[CPN] Proposal to amend the PhyloCode

[Philip Cantino]

Nico,

If formal discussion were to begin in January, I think it is unlikely that a vote would be taken that same month, since the issues you have raised are likely to stimulate quite a bit of debate.  Also, since your proposal entails changes in quite a few rules, it is very unlikely that there would be a simple up or down vote on the whole package.  The CPN may want to vote first on the general approach you have taken and, if that approach is approved, then vote on each rule change individually.  The CPN may also end up wanting to vote on some modifications of the wording you have proposed in particular rules.  From past experience with the CPN, I know that even relatively simple issues can take a while to reach a decision on.  I would hope, though, that the chairperson would keep the discussion moving along towards a resolution.  If discussion begins in early January, I would expect completion of the process (including voting) by March, but that's purely a guess.

Phil


On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Nico Cellinese wrote:

> Hi Phil,
> 
> It's very hard for me to distinguish what constitutes a formal discussion and what doesn't. Asking not to have a formal discussion at this stage may implicate no discussion at all, and that's what prompted my message.  We would certainly like to resolve this issue as soon as it is convenient to the CPN and certainly before the Code is officially published in the hope that modifications can be incorporated in the first printed version.  Therefore, if you mean that this issue will be voted sometimes in January or around then, I suppose we would find no objection to this.
> 
> Best,
> Nico
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Philip Cantino wrote:
> 
>> Hi Nico,
>> 
>> I am not sure how to interpret your first paragraph.  I would certainly not try to prevent anyone from discussing the issues in your proposal (and indeed, there has already been some discussion of it by a few CPN members), but my question was whether you object to postponing formal discussion by the CPN until the beginning of January.   By formal, I mean coordinated by the chairperson (whoever that may turn out to be) and eventually leading to a vote.  At this point, nothing can happen until the CPN selects a chairperson and secretary, and so far no one has responded to my call for nominations.  After a chairperson is selected, I think the first thing that will have to be decided is whether to post your proposal on the ISPN website.
>> 
>> Phil
>> 
>> On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Nico Cellinese wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Phil,
>>> 
>>> We understand that both you and Kevin want to be part of this discussion and I think we all understand that being away in South America or too busy right now with the Volume may prevent you from doing so.  We also hope that these are no reasons to stop others from discussing the issues we placed on the table.  We are certainly going to keep the door open for additional exchange with many of our colleagues, both in and out of the CPN.  
>>> 
>>> We can't interfere on how you will manage the discussion within the CPN but we do hope that it will be done fairly and all view points strongly considered.  I believe that both the ISPN and the PhyloCode should belong to the community and serve its diversity.
>>> 
>>> There aren't that many active people in the Society right now and as we have seen recently, many out there even believe the hatchet has been buried. We involved are probably among the most radicals but we can also be embracing at the same time.  If we want to make a significant impact, we need to be more inclusive and I wonder whether we have made a fair effort in the past few years.  Being more inclusive doesnt' mean to take into account the view of the majority. Being inclusive means doing our best to accommodate everyone's needs ad beliefs.  It means to extend the Code to cover as many use cases as possible. It means to develop a flexible Code that is embracing and not dividing. Only this way we will be able to be relevant, make a significant impact, and slowly replace the old with the new.
>>> 
>>> Brent, David and myself look forward to hearing from you all in the near future.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Nico
>>> 
>>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Philip Cantino wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Nico,
>>>> 
>>>> Kevin and I are concerned about the timing of the CPN discussion of your species proposal.  We both want to be involved in the discussion but the problem for us is that we have finally found time to work on the companion volume and are making good progress.  This period has been the first time that both of us have simultaneously found a chunk of available time, allowing us to send manuscripts back and forth and get a quick response from each other.  In contrast, there have been many periods when it has taken months for me to get a reply from Kevin, or vice versa, because of other responsibilities that each of us have been weighed down with.  Now that we are on a roll, we don't want anything else to interfere with our progress this month.
>>>> 
>>>> Complicating matters, I will be going to South America all of November and the first half of December.  I will be traveling light and not taking a computer, so my email access will be quite limited.  I am not going to be able to keep up with the flood of messages that will occur if CPN discussion is active during that period.  The issue you and your coauthors have raised is a very important one, and I definitely want to be involved in the discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> What would you think of deferring CPN discussion until after your Systematic Biology manuscript is accepted?  This might be best from your perspective as well, since it would provide you with an opportunity to fine-tune your proposal if you receive critical reviews of your manuscript.  Alternatively, if the CPN agrees to post your proposal on the ISPN website, what would you think about waiting for CPN discussion until after the proposal has been posted for a few months, allowing people outside the CPN to send comments if they wish?  Would you mind discussing this with Brent and David and see what they think?
>>>> 
>>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>>> Nico Cellinese, Ph.D.
>>> Assistant Curator, Botany & Informatics
>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biology
>>> 
>>> Florida Museum of Natural History
>>> University of Florida
>>> 354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800
>>> Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A.
>>> Tel. 352-273-1979
>>> Fax 352-846-1861
>>> http://cellinese.blogspot.com/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Nico Cellinese, Ph.D.
> Assistant Curator, Botany & Informatics
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biology
> 
> Florida Museum of Natural History
> University of Florida
> 354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800
> Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A.
> Tel. 352-273-1979
> Fax 352-846-1861
> http://cellinese.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20111010/90b1c9c0/attachment-0001.html