<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear CPN members,<br>
<br>
I thank David and Richard for their postings. Given that I have
already expressed myself recently, I would simply like to comment on
Richard's second alternative for the companion volume, namely
leaving out some submissions because Jacques does not take the
required time to deal with them. I think that this is really not as
good as adding a second VP editor because what kind of message would
that send to the rest of the systematic community about the ISPN?
That we are an inefficient, irresponsible organization that asks
colleagues to devote much of their precious time in preparing
papers, and then, that we are going to leave them out because ONE of
our members, to whom we gave an important role seven years ago (the
decision was made at the Paris meeting, as I recall, in 2004), has
not been able to do it efficiently enough? And because we were
unable or unwilling to do anything about that? That would be
terrible, I think, in terms of public relations. <br>
<br>
There are plenty of potential, qualified editors out there, and
we only need to make the decision to appoint one and then, select
one (both are easy steps, I think). After that, we need to ask
Jacques to hand over the relevant files (whichever contributions he
does not feel he can act on quickly). And please note that I am not
saying this out of my own interest; I returned all my revisions long
ago, so under Richard's proposal, they would be accepted in their
current form. Also note that in case some of you don't believe that
it would be easy or feasible to find another VP editor, <b>in case
of necessity</b>, I can volunteer (but I make <b>no claim</b> to
that, let me be clear, because I am already sufficiently busy), to
make sure that this important ISPN business finally gets done. But
people like Chris Brochu, Kevin Padian, and Julia Clarke, among
others, would do just fin, if they agree to take that on, I think.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Michel<br>
<br>
On 17/11/11 00:00, Richard Olmstead wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:a06240829cae9eedfd439@%5B172.25.83.57%5D"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style>
<title>Re: [CPN] Recent items for
discussion</title>
<div>Thanks, Dave, and others who have commented. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The only element of the discussion where I might have
something
to add pertains to the disposition of the Companion Volume. I
agree with Michel and Kevin and others that we need to publish
both
the Code and the CV together, because we have an obligation to
do so,
AND because it is the right thing to do vis a vis the Code and
our
ultimate goals. I don't think we should second guess our
previous decisions in this matter just because we are becoming
frustrated with the slow pace of editing - many of us are
complicit
with that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, I think we DO need to do something to make this
happen
sooner than 2015 or 2056 or whenever. Michel's suggestion of
adding another editor for vert paleo to help Jacques might
work.
Another suggestion might simply be to set a hard deadline for
final
drafts to send to the publisher and whatever treatments are not
ready
to go will not be published in the CV. That may seem a harsh
suggestion, but it is one that offers a finite solution. It
doesn't mean that the other treatments cannot be published; we
hope
that there will be a groundswell of publication sing the Code
after it
is published, and maybe the late CV treatments will be the ones
to
start the ball rolling. If we pursue something like the above,
I
would suggest that any treatments that have been reviewed and
revised,
but have not been finalized by the Editor, should be accepted in
the
revised form returned by the author. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dick</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At 2:43 PM -0800 11/16/11, David Tank wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Dear CPN members,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">In an attempt to move forward with
an
organized discussion of the several issues that have been
brought up,
I would like to try to sum up the recent flurry and request that
all
members of the CPN respond in some fashion to the CPN listserve
with
their take on the issue(s) for which they have an opinion. In
general, when discussing issues that have been brought to the
CPN as a
formal proposal to amend the draft code, once there has been a
gap of a few days in the discussion of a particular issue, I
will call
for a vote, and when doing so, I will also give CPN members an
opportunity to speak up if they feel a vote is premature and
more
discussion is needed. In the case of the three issues below, I
don't think that any of these would require a vote, unless
proposals
are submitted to the CPN.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">First, based on our vote last
week, the
Cellinese et al proposal will be posted on the ISPN website
along with
a call for feedback (before the end of December) for the CPN to
consider in our discussion of this proposal. Any feedback
received will be distributed to the CPN to aid in the discussion
of
the proposal that will proceed in early 2012.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Second, below I have enumerated
what I
believe are the main issues that have been raised and need a
broader
discussion by the CPN (several CPN members have already
responded to
these issues in the "Publication-Related Issues"
thread):</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">1) A meeting of the CPN sometime
during the first six months of 2012. At this point I would
like to get feedback from others concerning both the necessity
(as
opposed to email discussions) and feasibility (likelihood of
attendance sans financial support) of a CPN meeting outside of a
formal meeting of the society.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">2) The Companion Volume issue.
Two potential solutions have been presented, 1) remove the
Companion Volume as a requirement for implementing the code,
which
would require a proposal to change Item 6 in the Preamble and
Art. 7.1 of the code, or 2) push for the addition of editors to
speed up the process. As Michel Laurin pointed out, solution 2
is an issue that is more appropriately discussed by the Council,
because it does not involve changes to the draft code (as is
Mike
Taylor's suggestion to reduce the scope of the Companion
Volume).
I'm sure that the rest of the CPN has an opinion regarding
solution 1, so this is what should be discussed.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">3) Electronic publication. As
mentioned, this would require changes to Articles 4 and 5 of the
code. To my knowledge, a proposal to change these has not yet
been brought to the CPN, but it seems likely that one will
(Kevin
indicated that Nico may be preparing a proposal on this as
well). This
will require discussion at that time.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">If anyone feels that I have missed
something, please let me know.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Best,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Dave</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">Chair, CPN</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="">_________________________________<br>
David C. Tank<br>
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium<br>
University of Idaho<br>
208.885.7033<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dtank@uidaho.edu">dtank@uidaho.edu</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/">http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669">http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669</a></pre>
</body>
</html>