Kenneth Chang

Phil's historical document mentions major planets, secondary planets and minor planets. You're lumping major planets and secondary planets but leaving out minor planets as "planets." None of this includes the notion of "round." Also ignores the history of Ceres.

2/ A preprint of that paper is available for free download, here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04115.pdf …

3/ The paper shows that the community forged consensus to not treat asteroids as planets based on their small size, not because of their orbit sharing. No specific size limit was set, but Ceres was argued to be large enough to be a planet. (Vesta to a lesser degree.)

4/ So even though the community had decided in the 1960s that small bodies are not planets, we never forged a broad consensus on what the exact size limit is. We are *NOW* arguing (since ~2004?) that geological rounding is the size limit that is most taxonomically useful.

5/ The lower size limit issue has been percolating a long time. Even in the 1880s at least one highly respected astronomer was arguing that very small satellites like Mars’ moons should not be considered planets (while the larger moons should still be planets).

6/ It is *supposed* to be slow like this. Science is best when we argue over data and hold off making decisions until the data are overwhelmingly clear. This is why the vote in 2006 was so wrong. It cut off the real value of taxonomy in the scientific process.

Eris had been discovered. What were you going to tell people? "We don't know how many planets there are or even what a planet is. We'll get back to you in a decade."