[Taxacom] ICZN procedure question

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Verzonden: vr 12-11-2010 18:24

> A degree of caution is certainly NOT a sign of madness! 
> The notion that paper copies are inherently more survivable 
> because of potential for geographically distributed redundancy 
> is.

***
It may be mistaken (but probably not), but it is hardly madness.
* * *

>>, but the more discussions I 
>> see on the topic, the more I get the feeling that the 
>> immediate issue before us is formulating what exact 
>> conditions and requirements these Official Permanent Paper 
>> Copies will have to meet.

> [Some examples of paper-printed archives of e-publications]

>> are very untraditional: these are moving counter to the way 
>> the Codes now tend to organize things. A more traditional 
>> approach would be to formulate requirements as to number of 
>> copies, where (and how) these are to be deposited, and who is 
>> entitled to make such printed copies.

> Well, the Codes do not currently make such stipulations for 
> paper-based copies; the zoo Code uses words like "numerous" 
> and "durable", without further qualification. So I'm not sure 
> how "traditional" such requirements would be.  But I take issue
> with your suggestion that the examples you quoted run "counter"
> to this suggestion.  Two of the examples were authored by me, 
> and I was only introducing the concept in broad strokes. It had
> always been my intention when formalizing the language of the
> Code, that more stringent requirements for quality of printing
> and who, where, and how the paper copies would be archived 
> would be so stipulated -- making the requirements more rigorous
> than they have been "traditionally".

> Aloha,
> Rich

***
Well, at present publication is on paper, and the focus very 
much is on ensuring that all copies are produced simultaneously
(and uniformly) with a single moment of publication. The very 
idea of producing paper copies on demand, or piecemeal (as in
the 'deleted' examples with each archiving agency using 
its own computer, its own printer, its own paper, etc) is 
pretty explicitly forbidden.

Thus, the traditional approach would be to have only one 
agency (the publisher?) producing all paper copies (thus
insuring uniform copies) and then distributing them. This 
would be more expensive, and perhaps more cumbersome, 
but inherently safer.

>From that perspective, the more immediate questions would 
be who would be allowed to produce paper copies (the publisher,
the author, any civic-minded person noticing an unpapered 
e-publication?), with what quality, with a minimum of how 
many copies? and to be deposited where and how?

Paul