[CPN] Recent items for discussion

Thu Nov 17 04:32:45 EST 2011

Dear CPN members,

     I thank David and Richard for their postings. Given that I have 
already expressed myself recently, I would simply like to comment on 
Richard's second alternative for the companion volume, namely leaving 
out some submissions because Jacques does not take the required time to 
deal with them. I think that this is really not as good as adding a 
second VP editor because what kind of message would that send to the 
rest of the systematic community about the ISPN? That we are an 
inefficient, irresponsible organization that asks colleagues to devote 
much of their precious time in preparing papers, and then, that we are 
going to leave them out because ONE of our members, to whom we gave an 
important role seven years ago (the decision was made at the Paris 
meeting, as I recall, in 2004), has not been able to do it efficiently 
enough? And because we were unable or unwilling to do anything about 
that? That would be terrible, I think, in terms of public relations.

     There are plenty of potential, qualified editors out there, and we 
only need to make the decision to appoint one and then, select one (both 
are easy steps, I think). After that, we need to ask Jacques to hand 
over the relevant files (whichever contributions he does not feel he can 
act on quickly). And please note that I am not saying this out of my own 
interest; I returned all my revisions long ago, so under Richard's 
proposal, they would be accepted in their current form. Also note that 
in case some of you don't believe that it would be easy or feasible to 
find another VP editor, *in case of necessity*, I can volunteer (but I 
make *no claim* to that, let me be clear, because I am already 
sufficiently busy), to make sure that this important ISPN business 
finally gets done. But people like Chris Brochu, Kevin Padian, and Julia 
Clarke, among others, would do just fin, if they agree to take that on, 
I think.

     Best wishes,

     Michel

On 17/11/11 00:00, Richard Olmstead wrote:
> Thanks, Dave, and others who have commented.
>
> The only element of the discussion where I might have something to add 
> pertains to the disposition of the Companion Volume.  I agree with 
> Michel and Kevin and others that we need to publish both the Code and 
> the CV together, because we have an obligation to do so, AND because 
> it is the right thing to do vis a vis the Code and our ultimate 
> goals.  I don't think we should second guess our previous decisions in 
> this matter just because we are becoming frustrated with the slow pace 
> of editing - many of us are complicit with that.
>
> That said, I think we DO need to do something to make this happen 
> sooner than 2015 or 2056 or whenever.  Michel's suggestion of adding 
> another editor for vert paleo to help Jacques might work.  Another 
> suggestion might simply be to set a hard deadline for final drafts to 
> send to the publisher and whatever treatments are not ready to go will 
> not be published in the CV.  That may seem a harsh suggestion, but it 
> is one that offers a finite solution.  It doesn't mean that the other 
> treatments cannot be published; we hope that there will be a 
> groundswell of publication sing the Code after it is published, and 
> maybe the late CV treatments will be the ones to start the ball 
> rolling.  If we pursue something like the above, I would suggest that 
> any treatments that have been reviewed and revised, but have not been 
> finalized by the Editor, should be accepted in the revised form 
> returned by the author.
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> At 2:43 PM -0800 11/16/11, David Tank wrote:
>> 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 <mailto:dtank at uidaho.edu>
>> http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/
>>
>

-- 
UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20111117/67bf739a/attachment-0001.html 