[CPN] Fwd: CPN action needed on species proposal

[Michel LAURIN]

Dear colleagues,

I agree with the plan outlined by Phil. Most of these are of a fairly  
technical nature and I don't particularly care how they end up being  
implemented. I think that there is fairly good agreement among the CPN  
members about the spirit of this series of changes. Let's move along.  
We have more important issues awaiting down the queue (like publishing  
the Code soon).

Cheers,

Michel

Quoting "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu>:

> 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
>
>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.