<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>642</o:Words>
<o:Characters>2762</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Ohio University</o:Company>
<o:Lines>46</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>6</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>4496</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I apologize for this belated contribution to the CPN
discussion that occurred between Nov. 13 and 19.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>I have been traveling in South America for five weeks and
was not attempting to keep up with email.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>I returned to over 1600 email messages, which have taken a few days to
wade through.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I would like to
comment on some of the proposals that were discussed on the listserv:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I am ambivalent about Daniel Madzia’s proposal that the ISPN
establish a journal of phylogenetic nomenclature.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>An outlet will clearly be needed for emendation
proposals and CPN decisions, but I am not convinced that a new journal is needed now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I am inclined to agree with Michel that
Bionomina will serve this purpose in the first years after implementing the
Code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As the interest in PN
increases, a separate journal may become essential, but we can’t predict how
soon this will happen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Presumably,
with increased interest in PN, the resources needed to establish a journal
dedicated to PN (both monetary resources and people willing to devote time) will
increase as well.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>In principal, I favor changing the Code to permit
digital-only publications, but “the devil is in the details”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I will be very interested to see Nico’s
proposal.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I don’t think that a physical meeting of the CPN this coming
year is necessary, and it would be financially impossible for some CPN members
to attend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I also agree strongly with
David Marjanovic’s observations about the advantages of email over a
face-to-face meeting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The issues
we deal with in PN are subtle and take time to think through.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In face-to-face discussions, decisions
tend to be heavily influenced by individuals who have good debating skills and
are native English-speakers, regardless whether these people are the ones with
the deepest understanding of the issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>(This is a general observation, not intended to refer to any particular
people in this group.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As
David pointed out, e-mail allows us to cite sources and think out our responses
more carefully than oral discussion. This is likely to lead to more thoughtful and thoroughly considered decisions.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I agree with Kevin de Q that we should <u>not</u> circulate
a call for further modifications of the Code so late in the process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It strikes me as odd that this is being
proposed at the same time as we are discussing how to speed up implementation
of the Code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Surely a call for
further modifications would further delay implementation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We already have two large issues to
deal with before the Code can be published (species, electronic publication).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I am strongly opposed to abandoning or severely reducing the
companion volume.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We have a
contractual agreement to publish it with the Code, as well as an ethical
commitment to the many authors who have already dedicated a lot of time to
preparing and revising entries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The motivation for some of the
authors has presumably been the prospect that the treatments they publish in
the companion volume will have nomenclatural priority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The unhappiness that some authors have
expressed about the slow pace of the project would be dwarfed by their outrage if
we were to decide at this point that the volume will not be the starting point
for the code after all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>The suggestion that one or more editors or assistant editors
be added may have merit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is
something I would like to discuss with the other two editors.<span style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>An additional
editor whose specialty is either protists or invertebrates might be
particularly helpful, since none of the current editors are knowledgeable about
these organisms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It has been
challenging for us to edit the entries that do not concern vertebrates or
plants.</p><div>Phil</div>
<!--EndFragment--></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Nov 19, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Brian Andres wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Greetings all,<br><br> I thought I'd chime on a few issues in general, and specifically to answer Dave T's enumerated request for responses (listed at end of e-mail). I am extremely glad to see the increased activity of the ISPN and ISPN website, and I am in favor of putting all proposals and discussions up there (species, electronic, journal, etc.) for implementation... after the Code is published. Our primary goal at this point is to get a quality Code and Companion Volume out there, though I am in favor of discussing and possibly voting on post-publication changes. I and probably a lot of others are waiting for the Code to establish names and the lack of a projected publication date is rather problematic. So, I volunteer my effort to help make the Code a reality (see below).<br><br>1. I think a meeting is sufficient but not necessary at this point. We may, and will eventually, reach a threshold of activity that will necessitate a physical meeting, but my guess is that that point will be in the wake of all the effects brought about by the publication of a Code. A virtual meeting in the first 6 months of 2012 is a good suggestion and compromise, especially in light of previously mentioned travel issues.<br><br>2. It does seem like we have a contractual and moral obligation to complete the Companion Volume. It has been written into the Code since version one, going on 12 years old now, and I think we can all agree that simultaneous publication of a Code and quality Volume is the best of all outcomes. So, I would rather speed up the process than jettison the volume. The suggested solutions are to put some hard deadlines on authors, and add additional editors (whether these would be assistants or full-, assistant-, or sub-editors has not been raised and is probably semantic anyway). Kevin dQ has brought up the points that 1) we are not there yet to put hard deadlines on submission of revised manuscripts, and 2) enlisting more editors would require additional additional work. Kevin P is right, we have more people to share the load: 22 officers at last count. This is infinitely doable. My $0.02 is this:<br> 1) Based on Kevin dQ's September 6th progress report and my math (forgive any errors), we have about 59 entries needing one or two reviews. I suggest putting a hard deadline on getting those reviews back, and officers doing reviews that are not returned or never had enough reviewers. Once all the reviews are in and returned to the authors, then put a hard deadline on the authors.<br> 2) I am afraid I did not quite understand how additional editors would create more work than they offset, but my guess is that is the organization and distribution of entries already in the pipeline, which number about 80. That leaves the 59 still in the review process and the 79 that either need initial processing by an editor or need the author resubmit their final versions. My suggestion is let current editors finish the 80 in the pipeline, and have enlisted editors handle the entries that have not been initially processed. Ideally this would be three new editors. This should speed up the editorial process by roughly a factor of two. Existing editors can take a look at random editorial responses to assure continuity.<br> Whether, these suggestions are taken or not, I volunteer to help with the editorial process as an assistant or an editor. This well help mitigate the large number of VP submissions.<br><br>3. I await Nico C's formal proposal on electronic publication, but I believe it is the responsibility of all professional <a href="mailto:publicationscpn@listserv.ohio.edu">publicationscpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a> to have hard copy versions somewhere. The number and location is up for discussion. As for whether consider the early online version or print version for nomenclatural acts, I prefer the latter but I am open to being convinced otherwise.<br><br>Best,<br>-Brian A<br><br><br>On Nov 18, 2011, at 4:59 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I don't know that we need more editorial help, as enlisting additional editors would require additional work on the part of the current ones. The critical issue is whether Jacques will be able to make the Companion Volume a priority in the very near future.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">While I agree that a system needs buy-in to be successful, I think that the best way to get buy-in is to produce a good product. Once the product comes out, it will matter very little that some people previously thought the project was dead (or that it had few followers on Facebook and Twitter).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I don't know what counts as a full Companion Volume. We never had good coverage of all groups, so it won't be full in that sense. And some people will likely never resubmit their revised contributions (by a hard deadline to be determined) and thus will have to be left out. However, I am strongly opposed to publishing a volume that does not contain all of the contributions that were submitted and revised. Frankly, I don't understand why people are so impatient. This project has been consuming huge chunks of my life, and I want it to be finished as badly as anyone does, but I'm not going to take a quick and dirty out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Kevin (de Queiroz)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 11/18/11 5:41 PM, "Kevin Padian" <<a href="mailto:kpadian@Berkeley.EDU">kpadian@Berkeley.EDU</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Okay, so, if I understand Kevin's second point, the first kind of delay is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">caused because the editors could use some more help; the second kind might<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be mitigated with more pressure on authors from the editors. Both delays<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">suggest that additional editorial help is needed, no?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Also, I think it is important to consider the systematic community,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">because these are the people who will either use PhyloCode or not. If<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not, then we have a small group of people talking to each other and no one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">outside them caring very much. To be useful and used, a system has to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have buy-in from its consumers. So the news that many people think that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the PhyloCode is dead should be a wake-up call. Whereas accomplishing a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">complete classification of plants or animals may have taken decades in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">another century, and the Jepson Manual revisions still took 30 years (and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">well worth it; the existing manual was still in use, though), we are in a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">different age now, and we have more people to share the load; also, we're<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not exactly having a great following on Facebook and Twitter.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Could the PhyloCode be published without the full Companion Volume but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with a few examples of successful (and maybe unsuccessful) examples? This<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is the proposal that I suggest to the group. -- kp<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Two comments on Dick's post:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1) I agree that we will eventually need to set one or more hard deadlines,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as we have already done for initial submissions. However, we are not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">there yet. When we get close to the point where all of the revised drafts<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that have been resubmitted are accepted, that will be the appropriate time<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to set a hard deadline for the submission of revised manuscripts.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2) I am not in favor of the suggestion to accept any treatments that have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">been revised and resubmitted but not finalized by the editors. For one<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thing, this will lead to lower quality contributions, as even revised<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">versions sometimes still need significant work to get them up to par with<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">other contributions. For another thing, this is not the stage that is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">causing the biggest delays. Instead, the biggest delays on the editors<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">side involve the processing of the initial reviews so that suggestions for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">revisions can be sent to the authors, and on the authors side, the biggest<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">delays are with some authors taking a long time to resubmit their revised<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">manuscripts.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Kevin<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 11/16/11 6:00 PM, "Richard Olmstead" <<a href="mailto:olmstead@u.washington.edu">olmstead@u.washington.edu</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thanks, Dave, and others who have commented.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The only element of the discussion where I might have something to add<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">pertains to the disposition of the Companion Volume. I agree with Michel<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and Kevin and others that we need to publish both the Code and the CV<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">together, because we have an obligation to do so, AND because it is the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">right thing to do vis a vis the Code and our ultimate goals. I don't<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">think we should second guess our previous decisions in this matter just<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">because we are becoming frustrated with the slow pace of editing - many of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">us are complicit with that.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">That said, I think we DO need to do something to make this happen sooner<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">than 2015 or 2056 or whenever. Michel's suggestion of adding another<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">editor for vert paleo to help Jacques might work. Another suggestion might<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">simply be to set a hard deadline for final drafts to send to the publisher<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and whatever treatments are not ready to go will not be published in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CV. That may seem a harsh suggestion, but it is one that offers a finite<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">solution. It doesn't mean that the other treatments cannot be published;<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">we hope that there will be a groundswell of publication sing the Code<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">after it is published, and maybe the late CV treatments will be the ones<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to start the ball rolling. If we pursue something like the above, I would<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggest that any treatments that have been reviewed and revised, but have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not been finalized by the Editor, should be accepted in the revised form<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">returned by the author.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Dick<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">At 2:43 PM -0800 11/16/11, David Tank wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Dear CPN members,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In an attempt to move forward with an organized discussion of the several<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">issues that have been brought up, I would like to try to sum up the recent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">flurry and request that all members of the CPN respond in some fashion to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the CPN listserve with their take on the issue(s) for which they have an<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">opinion. In general, when discussing issues that have been brought to the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CPN as a formal proposal to amend the draft code, once there has been a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">gap of a few days in the discussion of a particular issue, I will call for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a vote, and when doing so, I will also give CPN members an opportunity to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">speak up if they feel a vote is premature and more discussion is needed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In the case of the three issues below, I don't think that any of these<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would require a vote, unless proposals are submitted to the CPN.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">First, based on our vote last week, the Cellinese et al proposal will be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">posted on the ISPN website along with a call for feedback (before the end<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of December) for the CPN to consider in our discussion of this proposal.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Any feedback received will be distributed to the CPN to aid in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion of the proposal that will proceed in early 2012.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Second, below I have enumerated what I believe are the main issues that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have been raised and need a broader discussion by the CPN (several CPN<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">members have already responded to these issues in the "Publication-Related<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Issues" thread):<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1) A meeting of the CPN sometime during the first six months of 2012. At<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this point I would like to get feedback from others concerning both the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">necessity (as opposed to email discussions) and feasibility (likelihood of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">attendance sans financial support) of a CPN meeting outside of a formal<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meeting of the society.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2) The Companion Volume issue. Two potential solutions have been<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">presented, 1) remove the Companion Volume as a requirement for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">implementing the code, which would require a proposal to change Item 6 in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Preamble and Art. 7.1 of the code, or 2) push for the addition of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">editors to speed up the process. As Michel Laurin pointed out, solution 2<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is an issue that is more appropriately discussed by the Council, because<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it does not involve changes to the draft code (as is Mike Taylor's<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggestion to reduce the scope of the Companion Volume). I'm sure that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the rest of the CPN has an opinion regarding solution 1, so this is what<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">should be discussed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3) Electronic publication. As mentioned, this would require changes to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Articles 4 and 5 of the code. To my knowledge, a proposal to change these<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">has not yet been brought to the CPN, but it seems likely that one will<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(Kevin indicated that Nico may be preparing a proposal on this as well).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This will require discussion at that time.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If anyone feels that I have missed something, please let me know.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Best,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Dave<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Chair, CPN<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">David C. Tank<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">University of Idaho<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">208.885.7033<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:dtank@uidaho.edu">dtank@uidaho.edu</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/">http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CPN mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CPN mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Kevin Padian<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Department of Integrative Biology &<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Museum of Paleontology<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">510-642-7434<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">CPN mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpnDear">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpnDear</a> CPN members,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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):<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="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.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If anyone feels that I have missed something, please let me know.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Best,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Dave<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chair, CPN<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">David C. Tank<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">University of Idaho<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">208.885.7033<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:dtank@uidaho.edu">dtank@uidaho.edu</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/">http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">CPN mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>CPN mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a><br>http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>