Why sci.bio.ecophysiology is on hold (I was there) [was: CANCELLED CFV: sci.bio.ecophysiology moderated]

Dave Roller dr at mail.auburn.edu
Mon Aug 22 14:49:04 EST 1994

A number of subscribers to ECOLOG-L (gatewayed to sci.bio.ecology) 
have wondered why the CFV for sci.bio.ecophysiology was suddenly
cancelled.  Interested parties who do/can not follow the discussion
on sci.bio.ecology would have missed the following informative post, 
which I have appended below my .sig.  I have set followups inclusively;
this seems to me a clear case where participants of sci.bio.ecology,
bionet.general, and news.groups could cooperatively and productively 
exchange views and information.  Please note that ECOLOG-L is moderated, 
and adjust your writing style accordingly.

David Roller                             dr at mail.auburn.edu
Auburn University                       (205) 844-4512 
------ highly informative post below this line -----------------
:Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 19:10:00 EDT
:From: Darren Sandquist <sandquist at bioscience.biology.utah.edu>
:To: Multiple recipients of list ECOLOG-L <ECOLOG-L at UMDD.UMD.EDU>
:Subject: Why sci.bio.ecophysiology is on hold (I was there)
:A number of legitimate concerns regarding the cancellation of the RFV for
:Rsci.bio.ecophysiologyS have been raised by some users that were probably
:surprised by this turn of events.  Especially important is the role the
:Ecophysiology section of the Ecological Society of America (ESA) has played
:in this withdrawal.  I was at the meeting, and was one of the persons
:confounded by the discussion (or lack thereof) that ensued when Una Smith
:announced that there should be a withdrawal of the RFV.
:The course of events that took place in the Ecophysiology business meeting
:is still rather fuzzy, probably due to the confusion precipitated from a
:very non-specific presentation by Una Smith and exchange with members of
:the section.  Ms. Smith declared that the charter for
:Rsci.bio.ecophysiologyS is inappropriate and in the end told us that the
:vote would fail;  to this day the reasons for that implication are still
:wanting.  The section secretary, who was presiding, then asked the section
:if it supported the CFV withdrawal and there were no objections.
:That was the extent of input by the section - the actual withdrawal of the
:CFV can not be done by the section.  Furthermore the question of a mailing
:list (see Una SmithUs post of 18 Aug) never came up in general discussion.
:If this is the primary reason for the cancellation of the CFV, it was not
:the reason the ecophysiology section voted to support a cancellation.
:The bottom line is this - the vote was put on hold, but by whom is still
:unclear.  The proponent of the group has been out of the county, and
:although the Ecophysiology section of ESA supported putting the vote on
:hold it is certainly not in it jurisdiction to actually perform the act of
:withdrawing the vote.  This is an important point, as the vote cancellation
:notice seems to imply that the section was the body that withdrew the vote
:- it did not.
:I hope this clarifies some of the concerns regarding the role of the
:Ecophysiology section of ESA in formation of the sci.bio.ecophysiology
:newsgroup.  Other members of the section who attended the meeting should
:post their views since this is only my perception of the course of events
:that has lead to so much confusion.
:And finally, regardless of why the CFV was canceled, everyone seems to
:agree that the sci.bio.ecophysiology newsgroup will be a valuable forum.  I
:hope the misunderstandings stemming from this puzzlement doesnUt
:negatively impact how the newsgroup is perceived nor overshadow its
:Darren Sandquist
:sandquist at bioscience.utah.edu

More information about the Bioforum mailing list