Originally Posted by njlarsen
I am still wondering about why this particular proposal is propagated. The maker of the proposal recommends "no change" and the NACC agreed. Recently, I have seen comments to the SACC proposals that there is a backlog of things that should be done. Why then propagate a "no change" proposal to take up time that could be better used on something else? Is it because the person bringing it forward hopes for a different result? But if so, why not openly state that?
By the way, I hope Laurent's comments about the additional information after the original proposal do get forwarded to the committee.
The SACC and NACC are completely independent to make their own decisions. So it doesn't matter what the other Committee votes; we (in my case the NACC) should make their own decision. Our goal is to address all publications that advocate changes in the taxonomy or nomenclature, whether we agree or not. Proposal writes often make recommendations, but this need to be the case. In this case, the paper's authors proposed that Catharacta be split from Stercorarrius (parasiticus and longicaudus), so both Committees re bound to vote.