CODE vs authors

[Ron at]

Someone emailed me privately to point out that "Chris Thompson wrote the
4th edition of the ICZN code".  My response was - no he did not. A
committee wrote it.

I was not sure but thought the F. C. Thompson on the list of committee
members was Dr. Thompson. I also thought this was likely from the way he
very assuredly finalized his answers to questions here.

I have been on many committees - some have been some pretty important
denominationally wide religious ones. One thing is for sure, on heavy duty
committees everyone is always disappointed in what the final position is on
some aspect. In other words, the final document rules over its composers
not the other way around. If the committee members did not, or were unable
to, communicate in writing their intent on a particular matter, too bad.
They will have to live with it - like everyone else. Rules have to stand
above all. There is no point in a set of rules if one has to run to its
authorS at every turn to find what they meant. The value of the past and
future editions of the Codes rests not with their unit composers over time
but with the intricately related systems they put forth and carry forth.

I don't really care who wrote it. It only matters what is written.
Especially since the vast majority of it was written in past editions and
simply carried forth into the new edition with just a little better
wording.  It would be a mighty big ego that would want to take credit as
Author of The Code.  If a code is not self-evident and self-explanatory
then it has no reliability or enforceability - at all. If a code does not
mean what it says and say what it means then those who follow it are
wasting their time.
Ron