[CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
Walter Joyce
walter.g.joyce at gmail.com
Mon May 21 01:39:47 EDT 2012
I am fine with the proposed mechanism as well.
Walter
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
> We seem to be converging on a preferred mechanism, at least among the
> people who have commented. If there are others on the CPN who disagree
> with the general approach that Kevin P's suggested, or who want to propose
> an alternative, it would be helpful if you would say so soon--I suggest by
> the end of the weekend. In referring to Kevin P's approach, I am also
> including my suggestion that each of us may choose to submit our own
> comments either in their entirety or as a summary.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On May 17, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Kevin Padian wrote:
>
> > I agree with what KdQ says here. That's why I proposed it.
> >
> > CPN member should be aware that outside the small group of people who are
> > mainly doing the heavy lifting and some decision making, there are some
> > perceptions of how the CPN is working that you may want to consider, just
> > to deal with the "hearts and minds" issue.
> >
> > First, there is the widespread perception that things are moving very
> > slowly with PhyloCode, and (as many of you have been surprised to hear),
> > many people think the effort is dead. So, by itself, involvement of CBM
> > in discussions would not be perceived as slowing the whole process.
> > However, I still think that they should be given only one opportunity to
> > respond.
> >
> > Second, everyone involved in the systematic community and PhyloCode is
> > aware that the major players know what the other major players think, and
> > that on the CPN, it is widely perceived that the deck is stacked. I
> don't
> > have a problem with that: people can run for office, and the votes tell
> > the story. The CBM proposal did stimulate some modification of the code,
> > and that is constructive. Also, discussion has been civil, and that is a
> > real departure from the systematics wars of several decades ago. This
> > will go a long way to win over people.
> >
> > In my view, continued civil discourse and being magnanimous about
> > suggestions will make a good impression on our colleagues. In turn, the
> > CPN (in my view) needs to be responsive to the utility and ease of use of
> > the code for rank and file workers, or it will not be of great use. --
> kp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CPN mailing list
> >> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> >> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Padian
> > Department of Integrative Biology &
> > Museum of Paleontology
> > University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140
> > 510-642-7434
> > http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPN mailing list
> > 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
>
--
Dr. Walter Joyce
Institut für Geowissenschaften
University of Tübingen
Sigwartstr. 10
72070 Tübingen
+49 (0) 7071 - 2978930
walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de
http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/arbeitsgruppen/palaeobiologie/biogeologie/people/dr-walter-g-joyce.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120521/c188634a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list