[CPN] Recent items for discussion

[David Tank]

Dear CPN members,

In an attempt to move forward with an organized discussion of the several issues that have been brought up, I would like to try to sum up the recent flurry and request that all members of the CPN respond in some fashion to the CPN listserve with their take on the issue(s) for which they have an opinion.  In general, when discussing issues that have been brought to the CPN as a formal proposal to amend the draft code, once there has been a gap of a few days in the discussion of a particular issue, I will call for a vote, and when doing so, I will also give CPN members an opportunity to speak up if they feel a vote is premature and more discussion is needed.  In the case of the three issues below, I don't think that any of these would require a vote, unless proposals are submitted to the CPN.

First, based on our vote last week, the Cellinese et al proposal will be posted on the ISPN website along with a call for feedback (before the end of December) for the CPN to consider in our discussion of this proposal.  Any feedback received will be distributed to the CPN to aid in the discussion of the proposal that will proceed in early 2012.

Second, below I have enumerated what I believe are the main issues that have been raised and need a broader discussion by the CPN (several CPN members have already responded to these issues in the "Publication-Related Issues" thread):

1) A meeting of the CPN sometime during the first six months of 2012.  At this point I would like to get feedback from others concerning both the necessity (as opposed to email discussions) and feasibility (likelihood of attendance sans financial support) of a CPN meeting outside of a formal meeting of the society.

2) The Companion Volume issue.  Two potential solutions have been presented, 1) remove the Companion Volume as a requirement for implementing the code, which would require a proposal to change Item 6 in the Preamble and Art. 7.1 of the code, or 2) push for the addition of editors to speed up the process.  As Michel Laurin pointed out, solution 2 is an issue that is more appropriately discussed by the Council, because it does not involve changes to the draft code (as is Mike Taylor's suggestion to reduce the scope of the Companion Volume).  I'm sure that the rest of the CPN has an opinion regarding solution 1, so this is what should be discussed.

3) Electronic publication.  As mentioned, this would require changes to Articles 4 and 5 of the code.  To my knowledge, a proposal to change these has not yet been brought to the CPN, but it seems likely that one will (Kevin indicated that Nico may be preparing a proposal on this as well). This will require discussion at that time.

If anyone feels that I have missed something, please let me know.

Best,
Dave

Chair, CPN
_________________________________
David C. Tank
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium
University of Idaho
208.885.7033
dtank at uidaho.edu
http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20111116/92ee05fc/attachment.html