[CPN] Fwd: CPN action needed on species proposal

[Cantino, Philip]

I meant to send this to the whole group but accidentally sent it just to David M.  (David, I corrected below one error in the version I sent you, so please use this one instead.)
Phil

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>
Date: September 10, 2012 2:30:08 PM EDT
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic at gmx.at<mailto:david.marjanovic at gmx.at>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] CPN action needed on species proposal


On Sep 9, 2012, at 6:03 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:


So: should I, in my function as Secretary, officially inform the authors of anything yet? During a summer full of absences and other timesinks, I haven't done so.


I think the plan was to send the authors our comments after we agree on wording for the modifications of the code that stemmed from the CBM proposal (see the last paragraph in Dave Tank's Aug. 25 message).  I hope we can move this along quickly now.  Dave's deadline for responding with general categories of changes was Sept. 3.  I suggest that we can finish with this matter most quickly by proceeding as follows:
1) Give committee members one week to speak up if any of us disagrees that a certain change or kind of change (not the specific wording) would be worthwhile.
2) For those changes where there is no disagreement, I am willing to take the lead in framing specific wording in consultation with Kevin.  Then we will submit our suggested wording to the CPN for discussion, possible modification, and a vote.  These should probably be discussed and voted on one by one, as Kevin Padian suggested, but let's try to limit ourselves to no more than a week for each, preferably less, as I don't think most of them will be controversial.
3) For the suggested categories of change where there is disagreement within the CPN, why don't we give ourselves a few days to express our views and then vote on whether to turn them over to me and Kevin to draft wording or leave them as currently worded in the code.  This can be done simultaneously with step 2 since step 2 does not involve the whole CPN.

If anyone has an alternative idea of how to proceed, please say so soon; let's keep things moving along.

I am aware of the following kinds of changes that have been proposed:
1) Broadening the definition of species in the glossary and elsewhere in the code.
2) Simplify and improve Art. 21, as proposed by David M. and others.
3) Modify the Preamble along the lines suggested by CBM.
4) Delete Note 3.1.1 and consider merging Note 3.1.2 with Art. 3.1
5) Reword Art. 9.7 (see my Aug. 27 message for details)
6) Reword Rec. 9c (see my Aug. 27 message for details)
7) Delete Rec. 11.4B

Did I miss any?

The only one of these for which disagreement has been expressed to date is number 7, which David M. disagrees with.  How about items 1 through 6?  Does anyone disagree that it is worthwhile for Kevin and me to draw up specific wording on these for the CPN to consider?  I suggest that we set ourselves a deadline of Sunday, Sept. 16 for CPN members who disagree with any of these changes to say so.   Is this procedure OK with everyone?  It would be good to hear from at least Dave, as CPN chair, but I hope everyone will feel free to suggest an alternative way to proceed if you are uncomfortable with my suggestions.

Phil



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120910/dcaa74c1/attachment.html