Michael,
Yes the default for BARC in such instances is to locate members & proxy
members that have not seen the bird to adjudicate and often in such
cases seek the expert opinion and for the most this has already been
done. One is not allowed to vote on ones own submission.
The analytical part is all part of the fun and a great learning curve
for all involved. What is really coming out with the case is the power
of the internet and digital photography. One can imagine how difficult
it must have been some 5 or 10 years ago.
Regards
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of michael norris
Sent: Saturday, 23 February 2008 7:52 PM
To: Nikolas Haass; Mike Carter; Tony Russell; BIRDING-AUS
Subject: Cooktown Slaty-backed Gull happily post
sittingtoday
Hi all
While I've occasionally gasped in astonishment at the quality of the
phenotypical analysis I am beginning to wonder if this isn't the sort of
discussion where I, as a local Councillor, would have to duck out in
case I
came to a Committee (let's call it BARK) with either a "conflict of
interest" - like a personal interest in the outcome increasing my score,
or
a concern about "apprehended bias" - a belief that I have such set views
that I would not be open to what I hear in debate before casting my
vote.
But I note BARC has 8 men on it - presumably this all male collection
would
be replaced by proxies should any one of the 8 be in the difficulties
outlined above.
Michael Norris
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
