[Zoobank-list] ZooBank Policies

[Frank.Krell at dmns.org]

Francisco,

just a few general remarks. Giving Art. 8.6. as an example for a current trend of inner circle decisions is misleading since the last edition of the Code was developed in the 1990s. The Commission is democratically legitimized by IUBS (and through votes by this body). That we have to maintain interim functionality between IUBS meetings might be admissible. Everybody could have nominated anybody for Commissioner, including oneself. Given the absence of a central body of zootaxonomists the ICZN has fairly acceptable democratic structures, and by currently revising our Constitution and Bylaws, we will improve. And, yes, not everybody's ideas can be followed. Decisions have to be made. Be assured that the transparency of the decision making process for the next Code and ZooBank will be more transparent and democratic than twenty years ago.
100 % of working taxonomists with access to computers can subscribe to the ZooBank list and the ICZN list and can actively contribute.

We will discuss your suggestions for the revision of the policy draft. Thanks for contributing.

Cheers

Frank


Dr Frank T. Krell 
Curator of Entomology 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
Editor, Systematic Entomology (outgoing)
Department of Zoology 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Boulevard 
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA 
Frank.Krell at dmns.org 
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 
http://www.dmns.org/main/en/General/Science/ScientificExperts/Biographies/krellFrank.htm




-----Original Message-----
From: zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org [mailto:zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Welter-Schultes
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:29 PM
To: zoobank-list at afriherp.org
Subject: Re: [Zoobank-list] ZooBank Policies

Dear Frank and colleagues,
I would prefer British English as the language to be chosen for such 
outlets.

more than one months - month ?

the Chair of the ZBC shall call for a vote - why not must?

The Chair will also designate - why not must?

"If more than 50% of the votes received by the voting deadline are in
favor" - should be 75 % 
(and favour instead of favor)

"If 50% or fewer of the votes received by the voting" - should be 75 
%

This should also apply to B 4 (perhaps copy i and ii to this section 
too, to make sure that the same voting procedure should be applied 
for amendments).

I prefer 75 % instead of 50 % for a majority vote. 

There is currently a trend in the Commission that important decisions
are mainly driven by internal circles of relatively few persons, not
reflecting opinions of the broad variety of taxonomists and not always
considering that there are other opinions outside, and not considering
that there might be a need to consult experts before taking decisions
(examples are Art. 8.6 where CD-ROMs were allowed as published 
work, where certainly no experts were consulted, and Art. 11.6 ruling
availability of names published in synonymy, where voices of 
taxonomists were obviously suppressed). 
This may also apply to developments related to ZooBank (the ZBC which 
is appointed by the Commission, the Commission itself being not 
democratically legitimated), where decisions will affect the broad 
variety of taxonomists out there. As a consequence, any important 
decision should not be approved by simple majority vote, neither 
within the ZBC nor within the Commission. Like the ICZN Code, ZooBank 
will only be successful if almost all taxonomists feel themselves 
well represented and their concerns considered and taken serious, and 
not only some.

I expect that one of the first issues to be solved in the course of 
establishing ZooBank is to create a multilingual portal for name 
registration.

Francisco

University of Goettingen, Germany
www.animalbase.org
_______________________________________________
Zoobank-list mailing list
Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list