[CPN] including proposal authors in discussion

Thu May 17 18:42:40 EDT 2012

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