[CPN] Results of vote on Note 9.3.1 expansion and the next items of business

[Cantino, Philip]

Dear CPN members,

Although two members have not voted, the CPN has approved this set of code modifications by a vote of 10-0.  

Kevin and I still need to make some related changes in the terminology of definition types throughout the code, and we need to add two examples to Art. 11.12 (highlighted in yellow in Note 9.5.2 and Note 9.7.1 in the proposal we just voted on).  

I will soon be asking the CPN to consider a set of other assorted modifications, unrelated to the ones we just voted on, that Kevin and I have drafted over the past few years.  I don't think any of these changes are as substantial as the proposal the CPN just approved.  It will be several weeks before I can send them to you.  I am leaving on Thursday for a week of vacation.  When I return, I will prepare a version of the code that incorporates all the changes already approved by the CPN since January 2010, when the version currently online was posted.  I will use this un-posted interim version as a framework on which to show the additional modifications that Kevin and I are proposing.  I hope to be able to send this to you by the end of August, but it may take longer than that because points may arise in the process that Kevin and I have to consult on.

To some of you, this iterative revision process may be starting to seem interminable, but we are actually approaching the end of it.  The only other major change I am aware of that is being considered is the one that was proposed by some of you last year--the possibility that the code could be implemented before the companion volume is complete, while still giving names and definitions published in the companion volume precedence over any published earlier.  I see a lot of merit in this suggestion, but it would be a major step that should be discussed thoroughly before a decision is made.  I think it would be better to postpone that discussion for a month or two until the CPN votes on the many smaller changes that we will be sending you later this month.  Furthermore, August is not a good time to try to engage in an online discussion, as many people are on vacation, at conferences, or doing fieldwork.

Best regards,
Phil