[CPN] Art. 22.10 (reply to David M.)

[Michel LAURIN]

Dear colleagues,

Indeed, I think that in this electronic age, six months is an  
unnecessary long time. We should reduce this delay to three months at  
the most, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Michel

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

>
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 5:53 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:
>
>
> If you've already incorporated them into your editing, I do think you
> should present them to us as soon as possible; it shouldn't be difficult
> to discuss two or more proposals at once. I don't doubt that they'll be
> accepted, but authors might be unhappy if you make them follow rules
> that aren't actually there.
>
> I agree that we should present our proposed changes soon, but I  
> disagree that it should be done before we finish discussion of the  
> species proposal.  It is already difficult to keep track of the  
> strains of this weekend's conversation of several different topics,  
> sometimes in the same message.  I think adding a bunch of additional  
> proposals to consider would be so confusing that it would bring the  
> committee to a standstill.
>
>
> Besides -- I've been a bit out of the loop -- what exactly is delaying
> the discussion about the species proposal? We don't seem to be waiting
> for the six months after publication that Art. 22.10 appears to require;
> is that because the Code isn't implemented yet, or are we counting the
> publication on the ISPN website as opposed to that in Systematic Biology?
> (Art. 22.10: "Proposed modifications of this code may not be voted upon
> until at least six months have elapsed from the date of their
> publication, to allow for discussion by the systematics community and
> communication of opinions to the members of the CPN.")
>
>
> This is a good question.  In my mind at least, the answer is that  
> the code isn't implemented yet, so Art. 22.10 doesn't apply.  The  
> CPN is dealing with the CBM proposal in much the same way that it  
> has dealt with many others during the pre-implementation period.   
> The approach during this long development period has necessarily  
> been less formal than what will be required by Art. 22.10 after the  
> code is implemented.  "Necessarily" I say because the  
> post-implementation process, while fine for occasional proposals for  
> modification of particular articles, is too slow and cumbersome to  
> accommodate development of whole new drafts.  Can you imagine how  
> long this whole process of preparing the code would have taken if  
> every change that Kevin and I (and occasionally other people) wanted  
> to make had to be published and then discussed for six months before  
> a vote?  Come to think of it, I wonder whether this process is too  
> slow and cumbersome even for the after the code is implemented.  If  
> publication requirements are changed to include electronic  
> publication (and I agree with David and others that they should be),  
> it will speed up consideration of proposals somewhat, but a  
> six-month delay before a vote may be unnecessarily long.
>
> Phil
>
>
>



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