[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:11:04 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:26:05 +0200 > From: Michel Laurin <email@example.com> > > The decision to launch the PhyloCode in the=20 > companion volumes was made by the plenary session=20 > of the ISPN, and it would logically take another=20 > one to choose an alternative. This would either=20 > entail conducting extensive discussions and votes=20 > by e-mail (not convenient for the whole=20 > membership), or it would require waiting for the=20 > next ISPN meeting to disccuss this (not advisable=20 > in my opinion because we need to launch this code=20 > soon). I'd just like to point out that David's proposal does not entail discarding the Companion Volume -- merely that the definitions proposed in that volume, like all others, would originally be _provisionally_ registered, to be affirmed or rejected after a reasonable length of time. That way, we'd avoid painting ourselves into a corner. _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________= _______ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor= .org.uk )_v__/\ "All that I know most surely about morality and obligations, =09 I owe to football" -- Albert Camus.