[CPN] including proposal authors in discussion
David Tank
dtank at uidaho.edu
Wed May 23 15:09:16 EDT 2012
OK - given that there have been no other suggested mechanisms on how to best include proposal authors in CPN discussions, and that all that voiced an opinion were in favor of Kevin Padian's suggestion, we should move forward.
The first part was to provide the proposal authors with summaries of the comments from CPN members and to pass along any outside comments (e.g., Hillis' comments). It sounded like the preferred mechanism to do this was posting these on the ISPN website. For those that were engaged in this discussion, can you please send summaries that you would like posted to the CPN Secretary David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic at gmx.at> as soon as possible? These can then be passed on (along with any comments from outside the CPN) to Torsten to post on the web. Does that sound OK to you David M.?
The second part of this was to discuss what we are going to incorporate from the proposal among ourselves and identify general consensus (if it exists) on these points. These points will then need to be summarized for the authors, who would be given the opportunity to respond before we make a final decision.
As of now, the reworded species definition by Phil and others and the revised Art 21 by David M. are the only items that have been discussed. Please weigh in on these if you have an opinion. If not, and we agree on them (do we? there has been very little discussion on these points...), we will need to summarize these for the Brent et al. to respond to.
Best,
Dave
On May 20, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Walter Joyce wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120523/bb4e0723/attachment-0001.html
More information about the CPN
mailing list