This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on Anyone may join the channel, but only council members can talk.

If you do not have access to IRC, you may view the recent traffic at:

This log can be can be viewed at:

IRC nicknames:
csmChuck Mead
freesideMeng Weng Wong
grumpyWayne Schlitt
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (

--- Wed Dec 1 17:14:17 UTC 2004 ---
17:14<MarkK>hi wayne
17:14*grumpy tries to figure out the "voice" options to IRC
17:15<MarkK>you mean to 'silence' someone?
17:15<grumpy>yeah, so that anyone can watch, but only council members can talk.
17:15<grumpy>try to say something
17:16<grumpy>try to say something now
17:17<MarkK>I did :) It said, 'cannot send to channel'
17:17<grumpy>ok, it appears that if you have ops, you have a voice
17:17<grumpy>if you don't have ops, you can be given a voice.
17:17<MarkK>yes; that is perfect
17:23<MarkK>btw, the Received-SPF header came up again; we might want to do something with that too; like I posted, ever since the MarkL draft, its status has become somewhat unstable/undefined.
17:23<MarkK>Your draft puts it back in, if I recall correctly
17:24<grumpy>Yes, and I need to work on it.
17:27<MarkK>you have now :)
17:27<csm-laptop>csm and csm-laptop are my two ID's if something can be set up to allow both that would be great
17:29<grumpy>join with both
17:29<grumpy>or, I can get a bot to auto-op certain people.
17:31<MarkK>my sentiments exactly
17:51<csm-laptop>well my other client is running at home... that's the regular csm one... this one is... obviously... the laptop
17:53<grumpy>I'm working on getting the auto-op bot working now.
17:53<grumpy>once done, you should be able to come and go as you please
18:07<csm-laptop>that's one thing about having a group made up entirely of technical savants... getting things done quickly is not a problem is it's only a technical issue
18:09<MarkK>yes; it is the poltics that usually slow things down
18:11<grumpy>Well, considering that the bot I'm trying to make work is written in Python, and I don't know python, I'm not too sure about getting this done "quickly". ;-)
18:23<MarkK>I am not too fond of python myself; it looks just like Perl, but less readable. ;) Although I'm sure real Python adepts would say the opposite. :)
18:49<grumpy>could someone try leaving and rejoining the channel?
18:50*grumpy grumbles
18:51<grumpy>could you try again?
18:56<grumpy>Ugh, you did it right when I took 0pm3 down... could you try again?
18:57<MarkK>it seems you are more proficient in Python than you gave yourself credit for! )
18:57<MarkK>It says: "* {0pm3} sets mode: +o MarkK"
18:57<grumpy>No, my friend writes perfect perl code
18:57<MarkK>seems to work
18:58<MarkK>works smoothly
18:58<grumpy>ok, now all I need to know is the /whois info for csm (not csm-laptop) and Julian
18:58<MarkK>is it nick-based?
18:58<grumpy>I think it is "user" based.
18:59<grumpy>e.g., I trigger off of
18:59<grumpy>(the ~ is important. That was why it didn't work the first time.)
18:59<grumpy>is that secure enough?
19:00<grumpy>the other channel that this was used on didn't need very much security.
19:00<MarkK>yes; think so; the ~ is from the ident server, I think
19:01*MarkK says: it has been a while since I programmed irc stuff; but if I recall correctly, the ~ LHS comes from the local ident server (built into mIRC)
19:02<MarkK>funny name, though, 0pm3 :)
19:02<grumpy>Well, if it ever doesn't have ops, I think it screams OP ME!
19:03<MarkK>LOL, now I get it!
19:10<MarkK>seems to work real well
19:10*grumpy is having a hard time getting the code to set +m working
19:13<MarkK>just testing if I had a voice :)
19:13<grumpy>oh, you have ops.
19:13<MarkK>Oh yes
19:13<grumpy>but if anyone enters right now, they have a voice
19:13<grumpy>0pm3 should fix that automatically
19:14<grumpy>s/should/is designed to/
19:15*grumpy discovers that he is changing the wrong line of code
19:30<csm-laptop>okay... callbacks from moongroup are now from <> instead of postmaster
19:31<MarkK>good :)
19:31<MarkK>Then I can send SRS addresses to it again :)
19:33*MarkK reminds himself to be careful not go get into it again with David Woodhouse
19:34<csm-laptop>sometime when I am not teaching I'd like to hear more about this issue... no time for it now... callbacks with postmaster seems reasonable to me... but plz don't get into it now... I have 20 students here in class and cannot focus on it now
20:00<MarkK>hmm, bot keeps shifting in and out a bit :)
20:00<grumpy>JUST ONE MORE BUG!!!
20:02<MarkK>it seems to quit, actually (not disconnect because of timeout and such)
20:03<grumpy>that's a feature. I'm supposed to be able to do a /msg {0pm3} die
20:03<grumpy>but, for some reason, doing a '/msg 0pm3 die' didn't work. Duh.
20:06<grumpy>it set the mode!
20:06<MarkK>yes, it did at that!
20:11<MarkK>good work, wayne!
20:40<freeside>what's the email address for the spf-council mailing list?
20:41<freeside>can we move it to listbox to keep everything consistent?
20:43<grumpy>spf even
20:43<MarkK>, even
20:43<grumpy>Hey! {0pm3} worked from freeside on the first try!
20:46<freeside>yeah, pretty cool, eh
20:46<freeside>+v would be preferable to +o though
20:47<grumpy>I can do both...
20:47<MarkK>+v? what dies that do again?
20:47<MarkK>does, even
20:47<grumpy>gives voice
20:48<freeside>speaking of giving voice
20:48<freeside>it would be really nice to raise the level of discourse on the list
20:48<freeside>by perhaps censuring certain outrageously inappropriate forms of behaviour
20:49<freeside>saying, for instance, "no. you are clueless." or "you work fo ra large corporation, all large corporations are evil, therefore you are evil" or more simply calling verisign VeriSlime
20:49<grumpy>the reasons why it gives ops is: 1) that's what the bot originally did. 2) if there is a net-split or something that causes the bot to lose ops, someone needs to be around to give it ops again.
20:49<grumpy>freeside: I agree.
20:49<MarkK>or calling long-standing members trolls for merely disagreeing with them
20:49<grumpy>but, I thought that was what greg and you were doing.
20:49<freeside>i mean, we can have a list with kooks, we can have a list with corporate representatives, but i don't think we can have a list with both
20:50<grumpy>you are calling PHB a kook?
20:50<freeside>huh, good point. i didn't think about kooky corporate representatives
20:50<csm-laptop>what about woodshed?
20:50<grumpy>not to mention evil people
20:50<csm-laptop>does he qualify as a kook?
20:50<MarkK>it has deteriorated some, of late
20:50<freeside>PHB may be obnoxious but he's generally right, and he doesn't cross the line when he talks about trolls.
20:50<grumpy>csm-laptop: woodshed is probably not a good term
20:50<freeside>i mea, truth is the best defense.
20:50<csm-laptop>I mean last week we were all wearing underwear on our heads according to him!
20:50<freeside>and people are, in fact, pretty trollish sometims.
20:51<freeside>so, i'm just bringing this up with the council
20:51<grumpy>I don't think Seth was being a troll, and I *do* think PHB crossed the line.
20:52<MarkK>I think he did too; it was very uncalled for
20:52<csm-laptop>grumpy: what's wrong with woodshed as a euphimism for woodhouse?
20:52<grumpy>it isn't his correct name.
20:52*grumpy is very sensitive about dropping the 'l' in schlitt
20:52<csm-laptop>yes but it's how I think of him andyou understood me...
20:53<grumpy>seriously, I'm not sensitive at all, but I think not using peoples proper names lowers the level of discourse
20:53<MarkK>reality is, opponenent of SPF will often try their case, ad nauseam almost, in here; and that is perhaps not really a bad thing. I, for one, will from now on be more responsible in not engaging them endless rounds that go nowhere.
20:54<csm-laptop>MarkK: agreed
20:54<grumpy>We want to encourage serious criticisms, just not the repeated ad-nauseam ones.
20:54<csm-laptop>in fact certain users mail simply goes "Pl0nk!" for me now
20:55<freeside>one of my goals for a future reputation system is for "plonk"ing to become visible publicly.
20:55<csm-laptop>okay so here is a question
20:55<freeside>so peopel can subscribe to killfiles in the same way they can subscribe to mailing lists
20:55<freeside>yay for balkanization!
20:55<csm-laptop>do we want to redefine the lists?
20:55<freeside>i suppose i should nto be surprised that in SFO a reasonably well-muscled middle-aged guy is wearing tight black leather pants.
20:56<grumpy>no, you shouldn't be.
20:56<grumpy>you should be surprised that he is wearing any pants at all. ;-)
20:56<csm-laptop>the discuss list is for discussion on how spf works and improving it perhaps... the neagative opinions may only be discussed on ALT+opinion+SPF after the opinion holder implements their own list?
20:56<freeside>i would also like the list to stop bashing DK and alternative technologies
20:57<freeside>promote your own thing, and if somebody else is into their other thing, more power to them.
20:57<freeside>miles libbey didn't win any points with anyone when he startede bashing spf and sender id at recent conferences.
20:57<grumpy>csm-laptop: isn't that waht SPF-help is for?
20:57<MarkK>I think important, at least for me, is to determine motive. If I feel someone is just out there to weaken SPF (with the obvious agenda of promotinhg their own stuff), then I think I should not go hat way anymore. Not that overstate my new role in the council, of course; but I *do* feel that it comes with the responsibility of trying to stay above the fray, and not going in deep in every skirmish.
20:57<csm-laptop>grumpy: what do you mean... the help list is which?
20:58<MarkK>I think I am not even on spf-help. ;)
20:58<grumpy>SPF-help is where you are supposed to post requests about implementing SPF on your site and how it works.
20:59<grumpy>spf-devel is about creating SPF implementations
20:59<csm-laptop>grumpy: okay what I mean is SPF at the protocol definition level... not the implementation level
20:59<grumpy>MarkK: I'm subscribed, but I think I'm over 1000 msg behind on reading it.
20:59<MarkK>I am on devel; I will subscribe to help, too
21:00<grumpy>anyway, I agree about raising the level of discourse and I think the council should delegate that to gconnor and freeside.
21:00<grumpy>although having someone else help out might not be a bad idea. Maybe someone in europe.
21:01<MarkK>yes; gconner has already done that job admirably
21:01<MarkK>I am in Europe, too :)
21:02<grumpy>WEll, freeside is also in Europe about 25% of the time. ;-)
21:03<MarkK>I would be perfectly comfortable with letting freeside and gconner take the honors
21:04*grumpy would like to see some of the load being taken off freeside
21:05<MarkK>I would not mind doing it; but I do not want to diss gconner in the process
21:10<MarkK>anyone else from europe?
21:11<grumpy>Uh, gmx, jpinx, julian, and quite a few others
21:11<MarkK>jpinx would be good too
21:23<grumpy>MarkK: could you exit and rejoin?
21:23<grumpy>Hmmm... no voice
21:23<MarkK>Ok; just checking; it sets +o
21:23<MarkK>but +o already has a voice ;)
21:27<grumpy>apparently, +ov doesn't work, you have to use two mode commands
21:27<MarkK>shouldn't 0pm3 have done +v on me?
21:28<grumpy>it doesn't constantly rescan. it only checks when someone enters or on startup
21:29<grumpy>try now
21:29<grumpy>oh, wait
21:29<MarkK>yes, that makes sense; channel entries generate a system message to every person on channel
21:29<csm-laptop>I had thought gconnor was doing a good job
21:30<MarkK>I think so too
21:30<grumpy>he doesn't do a quick job when he is a sleep.
21:30<grumpy>that's my only objection, and it isn't a strong one
21:30<grumpy>we should just ask greg if he wants help, and if so, who he would recommend
21:30<MarkK>he is generally very tactful
21:35<MarkK>well, talking about sleep, I need to go to bed. ;) Its been a long day. Tommorow things will be official, and hopefully julian will be here, too.
--- Thu Dec 2 15:07:07 UTC 2004 ---
15:07<freeside>so i've had some ideas about reinventing governance processes
15:07<freeside>i mean, if we're going to take over the world, we should start by creating a more effective form of decision making and group leadership
15:07<freeside>the primary insight i had was that we shouldn't focus so much on operating according to a system of rules; we should be more interested in creating a sustainable edcology of ideas to which we can mostly subscribe
15:08<csm-laptop>ah there we go
15:08<csm-laptop>it worked yesterday why not today?
15:09<grumpy>because I don't want to hear from you?
15:09<grumpy>different IP address
15:10<csm-laptop>we should do registered nic's for the channel... then we won't have those issues
15:10<grumpy>Yeah, yeah, I'm working on the log posting script.
15:11<grumpy>it should be done Real Soon Now
15:11<freeside>in accordance with robert fritz's ideas, we should focus less on problem-solving thinking, which is tactical, and more on creative thinking, which is strategic.
15:12<freeside>for example, spam is not a problem that can be solved. it can only be outgrown.
15:12<freeside>our job is to help the mail system outgrow spam.
15:12<freeside>jon callas at pgp had a great metaphor for me yesterday.
15:12<freeside>dave anderson ahs for a long time been saying that reengineering email is a lot like trying to fix the engine on a racecar that's zooming down a racetrack.
15:13<freeside>but jon callas did had a better idea: reengineering email is like rewiring an old house. oh, and you're not allowed to turn off the power. and the house has 300,000,000 rooms.
15:14<freeside>i liked that.
15:17<grumpy>yeah, you can't turn off the power for the entire house, but you can for certain rooms/sections. some can only be turned off for a very short period of time, others can go dark forever.
15:17<grumpy>so, your idea is that as the house/city continues to be built, we just outgrow the rooms that have gas-light and tar-paper wrapped post wiring?
15:17<grumpy>(city is probably better than house)
15:18<freeside>the problemw ith turning off the light in a room is that all the residents come out from the woodwork and complain.
15:18<grumpy>it depends on the room/house
15:19<grumpy>In a city, a houses get torn down all the time and new roads are built.
15:19<grumpy>people don't like it, but they accept the short-term inconvience if they can see a long term gain.
15:20<grumpy>Ok, speaking of governance, if this isn't quasi-formal council discussions, I would prefer it take place on #spf.
15:22<grumpy>e.g., this channel would be for officially blessing decisions that have been thrashed out in the open forums.
15:22<grumpy>does that sound reasonable?
15:22<freeside>s/thrashed out/thrashed/
15:46<csm-laptop>grumpy: once we have all the council members and present and get a chance to thrash out what we're going to do I'd be comfortabloe with that decision... right now we're all equals here but we shouldn't really try to decide much without at least getting some discussion going with all the members
15:48<grumpy>I view my "council member hat", much like my "root user hat". I've got no problems putting it on, but I only do it when I need to.
17:34<csm-laptop>okay so the elector major has now declared the election official
17:34<csm-laptop>has anyone seen or heard from Julian since the results were made known?
17:35<grumpy>no. he said he would be back today, but who knows. plans change.
17:37<csm-laptop>I sent an email to spf thanking jpinkerton officially for his work with the election... I also let him know that we were discussing other things we might, possibly ask him to do... assistant to the #spf mailmom was mentioned... anything else?
17:38<grumpy>I think we need to ask gconnor about whether he needs help.
17:38<csm-laptop>yes I think that is appropriate
17:38*grumpy delegates
17:39*csm-laptop smacks grumpy!
17:39<grumpy>I'll do it!
17:39<csm-laptop>hey... I jumped on jpink... you do something now...
17:39<csm-laptop>are we having fun yet?
19:18<grumpy>good afternoon.
19:18<grumpy>would you mind driving down and waking up Julian? ;-)
19:18<MarkK>I had hoped to meet with here, today :)
19:20<MarkK>Noe that things are official, I was wondering whether we should, either 'en group' or personally, issue a short public statement, thanking people and such?
19:20<csm-laptop>*we* thanked jpinkerton already
19:22<MarkK>yes, I saw that; it was good
19:23<csm-laptop>we need to send up a flare for Julian!
19:36<grumpy>fyi; contains the current IRC log.
19:36<grumpy>the url will change, and I need to do a better job of formatting
19:43<MarkK>excellent; perhaos you can filter out the '<---' '--->' commands?
19:44<MarkK>there, I wrote something too :)
19:44<grumpy>Yeah, that is a good idea
19:44*grumpy kicks csm
19:44<grumpy>Apparently, I need to do a bunch of converstions from < and > to &lt; and &gt;
19:45<MarkK>your url brings up a good question: was there not talk of ppl wanting an 'official' spf site? Like you, wayne (I think it was you?), I do not mind calling the spf-pobox site the official SPF site. But I am open to other ideas, of course.
19:46<MarkK>It's a live log! cool
19:46*grumpy is just trying to up the hit count on his website....
19:47<grumpy>MarkK: yeah, there has been some discussion of that. I think the goal is so that there could be a team of people who update the content. right now, can only be modified by Meng.
19:47<grumpy>Meng would have to be willing to give up some control, and I don't think anyone has asked him to.
19:48<grumpy>(btw, he is travelling today. I think he is currently at earthlink)
19:48<MarkK>the 'official' website has not my greatest priority, though
19:49<grumpy>although it is something that, once the council gives the blessing, people can work on.
19:51<MarkK>btw, how do youdo that 'live' log? do you just rewrite the .html file? Or is it fancier?
19:52<MarkK>It's cute, though ;)
19:52<grumpy>no, it is uglier than that.
19:52<grumpy>(bash script, sed and cron)
19:52<MarkK>Well, it still works :)
19:52*grumpy is a hacker
20:00<MarkK>the page keeps updating every second, now; can you have it expire, say, every minute (that is the highest cron granularity anyway)
20:01<grumpy>that should be fixed.
20:01*grumpy didn't say he was a *good* hacker.
20:01<MarkK>it's minor :)
20:04<MarkK>Perhaps I should email Julian; maybe he'd like to join?
20:04<grumpy>he usually shows up on #spf
20:05<MarkK>what is his nick again?
20:05<MarkK>doh :)
20:06<MarkK>Oh, the dereference of '%m' minutes variable seems to not go entirely right yet, either; aren't I annoying? ;)
20:07<grumpy>I thought I had that fixed
20:07*grumpy wonders what those characters are going to do in the html file
20:07*grumpy writes the script to disk
20:17<MarkK>yep, it's fixed now :)
20:23<grumpy>Yay! new url!
20:25<csm-laptop>I know Julian is not here but I think that what freeside was saying has some merit
20:25<csm-laptop>we were elected to do SPF's business
20:25<grumpy>what did freeside say?
20:25*grumpy probably agrees, but...
20:25<csm-laptop>some of that is competitive in nature and should not be public information
20:25<csm-laptop>we *DO* need the ability to have a private conversation
20:26<grumpy>I just want to keep it to a minimum
20:27<csm-laptop>as it stands we've got gman wanting to arhive the mailing list and this channel to have publicly archived logs... just exactly where would a "private" conversation take place?
20:28<MarkK>I agree; we *DO* need a place to discuss sensitive issues in private
20:28<csm-laptop>I would have no objection to that...
20:28<csm-laptop>now what I had in mind was something similar to what LPI does
20:28<MarkK>me neither
20:29<csm-laptop>they have an lpi-staff mailing list which all directors and staff participate in
20:29<csm-laptop>the board of directors have the vast majority of their discussions there.
20:29<csm-laptop>but when they need privacy the have the lpi-board mailing list... and it is not public
20:29<grumpy>sounds reasonable
20:30<csm-laptop>that is why I wanted to create the spf-council mailing list on a private host so it would be our "private" place
20:31<MarkK>I see no immediate need to move the list; does anyone else?
20:31<grumpy>I thought this was just a place where our discussions wouldn't clutter up #spf and spf-discuss and where other people's comments wouldn't drown out our discussions.
20:31<grumpy>I see no need to move the list.
20:31<csm-laptop>but then the suggestion was made that we should allow others to subscribe and I acceded to that wish but in retrospect I think we'd be better off if we had at least one place that we could have discussions behind closed doors...
20:32<MarkK>Meng did, I think
20:32<csm-laptop>yeah Meng wanted to move it
20:32<csm-laptop>I wanted it in a private place
20:32<csm-laptop>I dunno listbox does he admin it?
20:32<grumpy>he is one of the admins
20:33<MarkK>so do I; I think there is nothing wrong with keeping at least our private list private
20:33<csm-laptop>okay well moongroup has only one admin
20:33<csm-laptop>so hwo about this
20:33<grumpy>can we trust you?
20:33<csm-laptop>we create an spf-staff list
20:33<csm-laptop>on listbox
20:34<grumpy>or spf-politics?
20:35<csm-laptop>and the council and any selected staff use that for their discussions and that would leave the council free to use the spf-council mailing list for private stuff
20:35<grumpy>for all I care, the other list could be on moongroup
20:35<grumpy>Well, since spf-council is already set up, why don't we create an spf-private
20:36<csm-laptop>I'm really open for anything here so long as we meet Meng's very reasonable request for a private place
20:37<grumpy>I'm open too, as long as the private place is used only for things that need to be private.
20:37<csm-laptop>yes... and it works okay because there are those of us who are concerned with openness who will continually point out when we're closing a process that does not need to be
20:38<grumpy>For example, the old spf-oracle list was lightly used, and generally for things that were private, but the "spf-council" list on uh, gmc's box was just SPF-discuss with a smaller group of people.
20:51<csm-laptop>okay... check your email... (all of you)
--- Fri Dec 3 01:20:18 UTC 2004 ---
01:20<csm>freeside... did you figure out what was up with your in bound mail from the council list?
02:09<freeside>yeah, it was getting saved to some other mailbxo
02:13<csm>thought it might have been on your end
02:22<csm>freeside: did you see my comments about an "executive" list which is not public?
02:58<csm>okay good
02:59<csm>you should have a subscription message from it as well... send "non-public" info there
02:59<csm>the archives for that list are private as it's the distribution...
03:16<csm>you're welcome... I know you wanted it and I knew we needed it so... /me shrugs... :-)
19:19*Julian adds #spf-council to the auto-join list.
19:19<grumpy>we are trying to set up a time try and get this council thing rolling.
19:19<grumpy>when can you be available?
19:20<Julian>What's a time try?
19:21<grumpy>s/time try/time to try/
19:21*grumpy can't speak english
19:21<Julian>Oh, ok.
19:21<grumpy>btw, congratulations on your election.
19:21<Julian>I am usually available between 09:00 and 01:00 UTC.
19:23<Julian>We had such a good collection of candidates, I was having a hard time choosing myself. Some candidates were an easy choice (you, Meng), but the others... :)
19:23<grumpy>MarkK usually shows up in the evening (UTC), so maybe that would work
19:25*Julian gets a snack.
19:25*csm-laptop smacks Julian for that "others" comment! ;-)
19:25<Julian>csm: Hey! ;-)
19:26<csm-laptop>wuzzup bud?
19:26<csm-laptop>how was the "vacation"?
19:26<Julian>Busy it was.
19:26<Julian>I had a conference with some EU Greens.
19:27<csm-laptop>so we need to have a meeting
19:27<csm-laptop>get everybody together at the same time
19:28<csm-laptop>for those of us who are UTC impaired what US east coast time fram are you available?
19:28<Julian>Tomorrow evening (UTC) would probably be a good time.
19:28<Julian>Hum. :)
19:30<Julian>What time zone is US east coast? +06?
19:30<Julian>-06, I mean?
19:30<grumpy>yeah, at this time of year.
19:30*grumpy thinks that EU has daylight savings time, but it isn't quite in sync with the US
19:31<Julian>20:00 UTC = 14:00 +06
19:31<Julian>20:00 UTC = 14:00 -06, that is.
19:31<Julian>(Why is it I keep mixing up - and +?)
19:31<grumpy>I could do that.
19:31<csm-laptop>this is why some of us are UTC impaired
19:32<grumpy>(wayne@backbone$ TZ=UTC date
19:32<csm-laptop>so would 1400 tomorrow work for you?
19:32<grumpy>that's always my solution. ;-)
19:33<Julian>io:~> TZ=UTC date
19:33<Julian>Fri Dec 3 19:33:05 UTC 2004
19:33<Julian>io:~> date -u
19:33<Julian>Fri Dec 3 19:33:16 UTC 2004
19:34<csm-laptop>Julian: would 2000 your time... 1400 our time... tomorrow work for you?
19:34<Julian>csm: Yes. My time is 21:00, though (I'm +01).
19:34<csm-laptop>okay so where in the world is Julian San Diego?
19:35<grumpy>DE, IIRC
19:35<Julian>Right, DE. Munich/Bavaria, to be more precise.
19:36<csm-laptop>Oh I love that part of De
19:36<csm-laptop>beautiful down there
19:36<grumpy>I guess the only council member's city I haven't visited is chucks...
19:37<csm-laptop>Salzburg and Berchtesgaden are so close
19:37<csm-laptop>oh... and Garmisch too
19:38<Julian>Where's Chuck?
19:38<csm-laptop>today I am in Raleigh, NC
19:39<Julian>csm: I mean, where do you live usually?
19:39<csm-laptop>sunday through thursday I will be in NYC
19:39<csm-laptop>I own a home here but am on the road a lot
19:39<Julian>I see.
19:40<csm-laptop>I teach for Red Hat... :-)
19:41<Julian>grumpy: The #spf-council logger is a good idea. Does it keep an archive of older sessions?
19:42<csm-laptop>listen... I have to steop out for a bit... is tomorrow at 1400 my time acceptable for an IRC chat?
19:42<grumpy>they get posted to the spf-council mailing list.
19:42<csm-laptop>I will send email to announce it if you guys agree
19:42<grumpy>fine with me
19:43*Julian is fine with that too.
19:43<csm-laptop>email sent
19:44<csm-laptop>bbiab... prolly headed home but I have to stick my head into the office first... exam is offer... classroom is cleaned up... I'm out of here!
--- Sat Dec 4 00:31:16 UTC 2004 ---
00:31<Julian>See you at ~10:00 UTC.
00:31<Julian>(...and of course at 20:00 UTC.)
18:52<freeside>what's the agenda for the meeting?
18:52<freeside>i have been working on a HSARPA proposal which i'm ready to show the council.
18:57<csm>we need to have an organizational discussion
18:57<csm>we've been elected... now we have to figure out how we're going to operate
18:57<Julian>I agree.
18:58<freeside>motion has been seconded; it passes.
18:58<freeside>however, the meeting has not been called to order.
18:58<Julian>I think we should first decide whether we are going to set up organizational structures and then re-vote.
18:58<freeside>the motion is therefore void.
18:59*Julian is not a rules freak.
18:59<freeside>i think it's important for us to agree on mission and objective.
19:00<freeside>we should also review work that's being done and see what's lacking.
19:00<freeside>also raising the level of discourse and reducing the volume on the list would be nice.
19:01<csm>well the meeting needs to wait until the appointed time...
19:01<Julian>You're taking the words out of my mouth. ;-)
19:01<csm>we're early
19:01<freeside>what's the appointed time?
19:01*Julian gets something to eat. bbl
19:01<freeside>i need a few minutes to generate some PDF anyway
19:01<Julian>freeside: 20:00 UTC.
19:01<Julian>It's 19:00 now.
19:02<csm>someone call this gaggle to order then
19:02<csm>and somebody send out an APB on Mark
19:02<csm>he said he's be here
19:02<freeside>are you sure? i thoguht we said 2pm eastern
19:03<csm>it *IS* 2pm eastern
19:04<csm>[csm@stealth ~]$ date
19:04<csm>Sat Dec 4 14:04:35 EST 2004
19:05<freeside>julian seems to think we're an hour away
19:05<freeside>i need to go get a snack. brb
19:05*csm smacks Julian...
19:05<csm>I told you I was UTC impaired when we discussed this...
19:05<csm>dang it!
19:06<Julian>io:~> date -uIm
19:06<Julian>Typing `date -u` shouldn't be too hard. ;-)
19:07<csm>yes... *BUT* I asked *YOU* about this... essentially what time would it be UTC when it's 2pm eastern in the US!
19:07*csm is blaming *YOU* for this debacle
19:07<freeside>point of order: blame cannot be officially transferred without a simple majority vote of the council.
19:08<Julian>Well, ok, if you want we can start right now, too.
19:09*csm thinks this is gonna be fun
19:09<freeside>ok, who's 'here?
19:09<csm>it's not a big deal really... just having a bit of fun
19:09*Julian is not a "US eastern time" expert. :-)
19:10<freeside>show of hands for those present, please
19:10*csm is UTC impaired... Julian is US EST impaired
19:10<freeside>grumpy, shew, MarkK
19:10*Julian waves with his right hand.
19:11*csm waves with his left hand
19:11<freeside>we have a quorum, but i'd rather not proceed without at least one other person
19:11*csm notes that the right hand was on the coffee cup
19:12<Julian>I think we should not start before 20:00 UTC if not all of us are present.
19:12<csm>we have to wait another hour
19:12*csm sulks
19:13<csm>grumpy is prolly with his kids
19:13<csm>but... on a completely unrelated topic I am quite pleased at the moment
19:13<csm>found the damnrpm that contains the /lib/modules/%version/build dir on rhel4
19:21<freeside>hm, i'm going to go outside to forage
19:22*csm trolled the kitchen an hour ago
19:22<csm>caught some stuff too!
19:50*grumpy realizes he mistranslated tz's
19:50<grumpy>sorry guys
19:50<csm>no worries
19:51<csm>we're tied to 2000 UTC (regardless of our 1400 EST declaration) which is not for 10 more minutes
19:51<Julian>grumpy: :)
19:51*grumpy is saved by the mistranslations of tz's
19:52<csm>[root@stealth ~]# date -u
19:52<csm>Sat Dec 4 19:52:06 UTC 2004
19:52*csm has been edumacated about UTC by Julian!
19:53*Julian sings: Why can't we all just live in a single timezone?
20:00<grumpy>20:00 UTC
20:00<grumpy>MarkK was around earlier...
20:00<grumpy>~5hrs ago.
20:02<freeside>good, we're all here.
20:02<grumpy>even if MarkK is an hour late.
20:02<grumpy>sorry MarkK, should have noticed that.
20:02<MarkK>what do you mean, an hour late? I am at GMT+1
20:03<grumpy>just kidding..
20:03<grumpy>Chuck, Meng and I all got confused, I guess.
20:03<MarkK>pfew :)
20:03<grumpy>Actually, I thought it was supposed to be now, but on my way back from seeing my kids, I realized that csm said 14:00 EST, which was an hour ago.
20:04<Julian>MarkK: You're at +01 too? Where do you live?
20:04<MarkK>The Netherlands
20:04<grumpy>just west of where I used to live. (Utrecht)
20:04<Julian>Is there DST (daylight saving time) in EST?
20:04<MarkK>cool :)
20:05<grumpy>but, IIRC, the US and EU don't switch at on the same day
20:05<Julian>Hmm. Isn't EST supposed to be -06?
20:05<Julian>(including DST)
20:05*MarkK 's head hurts :)
20:05<grumpy>ok, shall we get the show on the road?
20:06<grumpy>csm: you here?
20:06*grumpy was last seen trolling for food in the kitchen.
20:06<Julian>io:~> TZ=EST date
20:06<Julian>Sat Dec 4 15:06:08 EST 2004
20:07<MarkK>what the heck is up with all this djbdns talk, btw? :)
20:08<grumpy>oh, it is just some idiots that don't understand that emacs has the true DNS server built in.
20:09<MarkK>shall we get started?
20:09<Julian>csm: ping
20:09<grumpy>freeside: you here?
20:09<freeside>i'm here.
20:09<freeside>so, let's get started
20:10*freeside looks at the agenda.
20:10*grumpy looks for an agenda
20:10<grumpy>Uh, I think the first thing we need to decide is what what our goals are, and what our organization should be
20:10<freeside>i suggest for now we proceed without adopting robert's rules, and if we get to a point where we need them, we can revisit the issue.
20:11<freeside>so, moving on to the goals and organizational form.
20:11<csm>I agree... keep it simple for now
20:11*grumpy misread "without" as "with"
20:11*grumpy agrees with freeside
20:11<Julian>I also object to using RRO.
20:11<MarkK>yes, abide by the KISS principle; if we need to complicate matters along the way, we can always do so later :)
20:12<Julian>I think it's too complicated, and over-kill in effect.
20:12<grumpy>Shall we adopt the IETF WG process until we need to have other rules?
20:12<freeside>we can, of course, use whatever useful subset of the RRO if we want to.
20:12<freeside>for example, we can call for a vote on something at any time, and try to poll council members to see what they think.
20:12<freeside>what are we all saying yes to?
20:13<grumpy>that we can call for a vote
20:13<Julian>"for example, we can call for a vote on something at any time, and try to poll council members to see what they think."
20:13<grumpy>if we need to
20:13<freeside>ok, fine.
20:13<freeside>okay, so, let's keep going.
20:13<grumpy>should we define a quorum?
20:13<csm>simple rule
20:13<Julian>How long is this chat supposed to last?
20:13<csm>simple rule
20:13<csm>no vote without a proposal and a second
20:14<grumpy>I can live with that.
20:14<csm>I propose we adopt that rule
20:14<freeside>okay, sounds good
20:14<MarkK>me too
20:14<Julian>Me too
20:14<csm>so seconded
20:14<csm>it's anonymous
20:14<grumpy>I propose a quorum is 4 members
20:14<csm>I second
20:14<csm>3 is too few
20:15<csm>grumpy proposed so that make it anonymous
20:15<freeside>so, next point, i think we can run the chat for 1 hour, and adjourn if somebody has to go after that
20:15<csm>I second
20:15<Julian>Ok. /me has time, but still wanted to know.
20:15<grumpy>I can run longer, but 1hr is fine
20:16<freeside>let's somebody get {0pm3} to handle the anonymous voting and take it from there if that capability shows up
20:16<freeside>meanwhile are we going to meet weekly or what?
20:16<csm>weekly I think should be the minimum
20:16<Julian>I guess {0pm3} is a bot, right?
20:16<csm>Julian: yes
20:16<grumpy>right now, it just knows how to op people
20:17<csm>freeside has proposed weekly meetings
20:17<freeside>ok, i'd be happy to meet weekly on irc
20:17<MarkK>me too
20:17<grumpy>I think it should be more often, at least initially
20:17<Julian>I propose to meet _at least_ weakly.
20:17<csm>second proposal
20:17<MarkK>I also believe we should be able to call inter-mediate meetings, if the need arises
20:17<csm>I could/do/will second that one too
20:17<csm>hold on a sec
20:18<csm>so if I read this right
20:18<freeside>interim meetings coul dbe called with 24 hours notice on the mailing list
20:18<csm>we have a proposal to meet *at least* weekly
20:18<MarkK>aye to that proposal
20:18<Julian>freeside: seconded
20:18<csm>and additional meetings can be called with 24 hours notice
20:18<csm>so weekly + 24?
20:18<grumpy>yeah, that sounds good to me.
20:19<csm>the day for the scheduled weekly
20:19<csm>saturday or sunday?
20:19<grumpy>Sundays actually work better for me.
20:19<csm>I will tell you now that I often have to travel on sunday
20:19<csm>this time otmorrow I will be en-route to NYC
20:19<grumpy>I can do saturdays, if I plan ahead
20:20<csm>and that's typical
20:20<grumpy>I can also do weekdays
20:20<grumpy>other opinions?
20:20<Julian>We could choose Sat, and fall back on Sun if necessary.
20:20<csm>weekdays are a problem for me... I am an instructor
20:20<csm>and since some of you are in europe that makes it tough
20:21<csm>we'd be late at night for those guys
20:21<grumpy>Well, it is evening for them
20:21<Julian>Well, the time difference between us is about 7h, right?
20:21<grumpy>ok, saturdays, unless moved?
20:21<Julian>grumpy: seconded
20:21<freeside>at this time, particularly?
20:21<csm>saturdays I just need to know the time
20:22<grumpy>it would be slightly better for me for an hour earlier
20:22<Julian>Anything between 10:00 and 22:00 UTC would be fine for me.
20:22<csm>and for me
20:22<freeside>okay, 2pm eastern then
20:22<Julian>That's 19:00 UTC.
20:22<freeside>with a note to keep julian waiting by an hour when we switch to daylight savings
20:22<grumpy>so, 19:00 UTC Saturdays, until DST takes over, and then it is either 18:00 or 20:00?
20:22<Julian>freeside: Heh.
20:23<Julian>grumpy: UTC doesn't have DST. Why not just keep a constant UTC time?
20:23<csm>we should just express it in UTC
20:23<csm>now that Julian has trained me I can do it
20:24<grumpy>Well, I think we can deal with DST when we get to that point.
20:24<csm>okay... well I am fine with 1900 UTC
20:24<grumpy>mostion: meetings at 19:00 UTC saturdays or with 24hr notice
20:24<grumpy>motion even
20:25<grumpy>motion: we need a secretary to summarize and report to SPF-discuss
20:25<csm>so... who chairs the gaggle?
20:25<csm>grumpy: chair first then others
20:25*grumpy nominates csm as chair
20:26<grumpy>does anyone have experience being the chair?
20:26*grumpy doesn't
20:26<csm>I do
20:26*Julian neither
20:26<csm>but I won't do it without a second and a vote... :-)
20:26<Julian>csm: Do you accept the nomination?
20:26<MarkK>I second csm
20:26*grumpy also doesn't know RRoO(r)v10 backwards and forwards
20:27<grumpy>other nominations?
20:27<Julian>csm is good.
20:27<csm>I would like to take a moment for some discussion
20:27<csm>I have some thoughts about this
20:27<csm>I had thought that it would likely be freeside or me
20:28<csm>but I *MUCH* prefer that he be free to focus on the technical aspects of what needs to be done
20:28<csm>the *CHAIR* is really an admin position
20:28<Julian>I agree.
20:28<grumpy>in some orgs, the chair can't even vote unless there is a tie
20:28<Julian>Well, I can do the summarizing/reporting part.
20:28<csm>and I want to move some things along without having to get embroiled into technical details...
20:28<csm>Julina: that's the secretary... we have ot get this one done first
20:28<grumpy>freeside: ? MarkK ?
20:29<Julian>(...if the traffic on the council list doesn't get too high.)
20:29<csm>anyway... I think/thought/was hgoping
20:29<freeside>ok, as long as i get some kind of title i can use to explain to the world that i'm involved in some way here
20:29<csm>freeside: Exect=utive Director was my choice for you
20:29<grumpy>Julian: an important part is to dig through these logs and properly record what we voted on.
20:30<Julian>grumpy: I know. That's the easy part of reporting, I guess.
20:30<freeside>speaking of voting, i think we should preface vote topics with a unique identifier, and votes should correspond
20:30<Julian>freeside: seconded
20:30<csm>freeside: the ED runs the day to day and makes the operation go... the chair just makes the meetings work
20:30<MarkK>freeside: seconded
20:30<freeside>ok, sounds good
20:31<freeside>i vote csm to chair the meeting
20:31<freeside>2031a: i vote csm to chair the meeting
20:31<grumpy>2031a: 2nd'ed
20:31<grumpy>2031a: aye
20:31<Julian>2031a: yes
20:32<MarkK>2031a: yes
20:32<freeside>2031a: yes, though i think if i propose it i don't have to vote again :)
20:32<csm>that being a majority I here by call this first meeting to order! :-)
20:32*grumpy agrees with freeside 1432
20:32<freeside>okay, csm has the conch
20:32<csm>the chair is prepared to entertain motions for secretary
20:32*grumpy nominates Julian
20:32*Julian accepts.
20:32*csm seconds
20:33<Julian>(That was 2032a, I guess.)
20:33<csm>so labeled
20:33<csm>additional votes
20:33<freeside>2032a: yes
20:33<grumpy>2032a yes
20:33<MarkK>2032a: yes
20:33<Julian>2032a: yes
20:33<csm>so ordered
20:33<csm>the chair is prepared to entertain motions for Executive Director
20:33*grumpy nominates freeside
20:33*freeside observes that people are using robert's rules without knowing it
20:34*csm seconds
20:34<MarkK>is this 2033a?
20:34<Julian>(freeside: I thought that was the point of RRO... :)
20:34<csm>so labeled
20:34*grumpy observes that RRoO(r)v10 isn't the only set of parlmentary rules
20:34<csm>the chair is prepared to vote on 2033a unless there is additional discussion
20:35<csm>without discussion the chair puts 2033a to a vote
20:35<grumpy>2033a: aye
20:35<MarkK>2033a: yes
20:35<Julian>2033a: yes
20:35*grumpy notes that freeside never accepted.
20:35*grumpy doesn't care
20:35<freeside>ok, i accept
20:35*csm notes that freeside asked for it anyway
20:36<freeside>okey dokey
20:36<grumpy>ok, what's up next?
20:36<Julian>Can we use consecutive numbers as vote prefixes instead of UTC time + letter?
20:36<csm>a short definition
20:36<freeside>step 3: profit!
20:36<csm>freeside: the ED position runs the day to day ops and executes the operational will of the council
20:37<csm>it speaks for the council in all things...
20:37<csm>but must adhere ot the will of the council
20:37<csm>we good?
20:37<Julian>So the ED is also the spokesman.
20:37<csm>unless the council issues it's own statement (doubtful)
20:37<grumpy>the ED can say things that aren't the will of the council, if so noted, right?
20:38<csm>grumpy: yes... just caveate with an "I think"
20:38<Julian>...if so _explicitly_ noted...
20:38<MarkK>Yes, let the ED make clear he speaks for himself
20:38<grumpy>freeside: ?
20:38<csm>but in matters of execution the councils will has to be done by the ED... it's what the ED exists to do
20:38<freeside>okey dokey
20:39<csm>and that should give you the formal power, authority, voice that you need
20:39<grumpy>ok, sounds good to me then.
20:39<MarkK>sounds good to me
20:39<csm>now... there is another piece of business I'd like to bring up and then pass discussion to the floor for other topics
20:39<grumpy>question: who prepares the agenda? The chair, or the ED, or the Sec?
20:39<csm>the chair
20:39<csm>who will accept incoming from all other members
20:40<MarkK>that sounds ok
20:40<csm>now... there is another piece of business I'd like to bring up and then pass discussion to the floor for other topics
20:40<Julian>Can we have a definition for the secretary, too, please?
20:40<csm>oh sure
20:41<csm>the secretary drafts all minutes, vote results, and such other documentation as the council may direct
20:41<Julian>...and post it on the council mailing list?
20:41<Julian>(Or other places as the council may direct.)
20:41<MarkK>I thought we were going to post thgese logs in its entirity? I guess that is off, then
20:42*grumpy suggest posting to SPF-discuss also
20:42<csm>it contains competitive info which must be redacted and redirected to the private list
20:42<Julian>MarkK: No, it's not off. But a summary should go to spf-discuss.
20:42<csm>can I clarify?
20:42<Julian>Go ahead.
20:42<csm>here is what I think
20:43<csm>what we have done so far should/will be posted in it's entirety to the spf-council list... interested parties can read it in the archives
20:43<Julian>(We cannot talk about private things here, BTW, as the IRC channel is public.)
20:43<csm>there is another type of data
20:43<csm>freeside mentioned it a few days ago
20:44<csm>that is why we have an executive session mailing list so we can mak4e each other aware of and discuss information which should not be public
20:44<csm>we may eventually have to have an IRC channel like that too but I am happy with that
20:45<grumpy>I feel better with just having a mailing list. I've seen too many "oops, wrong channel" messages on IRC
20:45<csm>any communication that is of *THAT* nature should not be in the regular council record but I believe we can make it clear when we are discussing something of that nature
20:45<csm>Julian: hopefully that is adequate instruction for handling that type of material
20:45<Julian>csm: Ok.
20:46<Julian>I formally propose that the council should restrict non-public communication to the absolute minimum amount that is required to be private.
20:46*grumpy seconds 2046a
20:46<csm>so labeled
20:46<MarkK>2046a: yes
20:46<grumpy>2046a aye
20:46<Julian>2046a: yes
20:47<grumpy>csm? freeside?
20:47<freeside>2046a: yes
20:47<csm>so ordered
20:47<csm>freeside: are you comfortable with the private channel we've put in place?
20:47<freeside>which one, this one?
20:47<freeside>what? who?
20:47<csm>no... the spf-private mailing list
20:48<freeside>oh, okay
20:48<freeside>that'll do
20:48<csm>there is only *ONE* admin of that resource
20:48<csm>and that's me
20:48<Julian>(csm: Do you plan on only casting a vote if there's a tie? I don't think such a restriction is necessary.)
20:49<csm>Julian: most cases I will abstain from voting unless I proposed or we cannot get a majority in one direction or another otherwise
20:49<Julian>Well. Fine with me.
20:50<csm>okay so as I said previously I have one more piece of business and then would like to open discussion of other business to the floor
20:50<grumpy>Ok, just to be clear, we are not going to create a set of bylaws at this time or form a corporation, right?
20:50<grumpy>csm: go ahead
20:50<csm>grumpy shut the hell up
20:51<grumpy>(is assult included?)
20:51<csm>so the chair would like to enquire if this council is interested in exploring options that have been discussed to move SPF into an "anti-spam" standards org...?
20:52<grumpy>I'm not opposed to it, but I don't want that to distract from getting SPFv1 done
20:52<grumpy>do you think we can do both?
20:52<csm>other opinion?
20:52<csm>just hold on grumpy
20:52<Julian>grumpy: We should pursue a long term vision right from the start, I think.
20:52<freeside>i'm pretty confident the directorate will pass whatever we submit, personally
20:53<freeside>if they're going to do that, why not go with the usual RFC publication channel.
20:53<grumpy>a group of people who review all MARID I-Ds
20:53<csm>yes... but who among us wants to stop there... and that is my concern
20:53<MarkK>I promised I would make SPFv1 my first priority; I feel that should be our foremost priority now; we lost too much time in that regard already
20:54<csm>okay... let me put it in a different way
20:54<Julian>I think we should keep the larger perspective in mind while finalizing SPFv1.
20:54<csm>what I would actually like to propose is this
20:54<csm>we form a committee... made up of interested council members and some of the other interested parties from the electorate
20:55<csm>an exploration committee
20:55*grumpy notes the time and says he can go at least 1hr more
20:55<grumpy>I would support that.
20:55<Julian>csm: I.e. a spf-strategic mailing list?
20:55<csm>that committee then reports back to the council with a report/recommendation which the council can then choose to adopt, defer or pursue
20:55<csm>Julian: yes... that would likely be an appropriate resource
20:56<Julian>2055a: seconded
20:56<csm>say we give it a month... that way the concil could pursue the SPFv1 and we have work being done in the mean while which could be adopted later which suite the long term vision of some of us as well as the elctorate
20:57<MarkK>csm: can you clarify perhaps a bit more what its purpose would be? to explore strategic courses of action for the council?
20:57<MarkK>or just SPFv1?
20:57<csm>MarkK: this effort is (and always has been) bigger, for me, and some others than just SPF
20:57<csm>I do not want to slow down the adoption of SPFv1
20:58<csm>but we have an opportunity to create something bigger and I think we should
20:58<Julian>MarkK: "Accountable Messaging Standards Group" or something, I think.
20:58<csm>it involves more than just SPFv1
20:58<Julian>SPFv2/3, for instance.
20:58<csm>so I don't want to slow down SPFv1 while we deal with that so I propose we apooint a committe to explore those options
20:58<MarkK>I read a lot of late about treplacing IETF and such; not sure how feasible that is
20:59<Julian>I don't think we should try replacing IETF. That ain't gonna work.
20:59<grumpy> replaced the IETF for a small area
20:59<csm>well look guys... I do not htink it's appropriate for the council to make the decision about that direction
20:59<grumpy>or, more exactly, the IETF fell over for a certain area and the w3c was formed to fill the void
21:00<csm>what we *SHOULD* do is appoint a committee to look at it and come up with some useful/doable suggestions
21:00<MarkK>The grounds for any successul 'takeover' is a solid, tangible basis; SPFv1 in RFC form would be such a basis
21:00<Julian>Accountable messaging isn't just SPFv1-style hop-to-hop authentication.
21:01*grumpy agrees with julian
21:01<csm>I don't necessarily wantr to do a "take over" of the IETF
21:01<grumpy>it could also include
21:01<Julian>It might include things like S/MIME...
21:01<Julian>grumpy: Yup.
21:01<grumpy>(if Meng approves)
21:01<csm>but AMSG might be a damned good thing and I think we should explore the options
21:01<Julian>csm: Is that a formal proposal?
21:01<MarkK>Ok, I agree on on
21:01<grumpy>freeside: comments?
21:02<csm>AMSG1: proposed--- that the council appoint a committe to explore the options available for formation of a formal group
21:02<Julian>AMSG1: Seconded.
21:03<Julian>AMSG1: yes
21:03<MarkK>AMSG1: yes
21:03<grumpy>AMSG1: aye
21:03<freeside>AMSG1: abstain
21:03<grumpy>freeside: ?
21:03<csm>so ordered
21:03<grumpy>it should be ASMG, right?
21:03<freeside>er, whatever :)
21:03<csm>grumpy: wuld you accept to undertake the formation of the committee?
21:03<grumpy>I would prefer to consentrate on SPFv1 draft
21:03<freeside>i think the council should discuss what we want to achieve before we get into the details of how specifications should be ratified.
21:03<Julian>freeside: Would you be willing to explain your abstention for our audience?
21:04<Julian>Ah, ok.
21:04<csm>is there a council member who would undertake to form the committee?
21:04<freeside>i mean, i'd be happy for the subcommittee to go ahead, i guess
21:04<freeside>we just have to be sure we're going to think about what it reports back with
21:04<Julian>"formal group" doesn't imply "standards body".
21:05<csm>is there a council member who would undertake to form the committee?
21:05*grumpy is interested in exploring freeside's concerns
21:06*csm firgured that since freeside workd so closely with standards groups he did not want to seem to be undercutting them
21:06*MarkK is not entirely clear on the purpose of that committee yet
21:06<csm>to explore options for creation of a formal body for managing and proposing anti-spam standards
21:07<freeside>proposing or ratifying?
21:07<csm>if you are familiar with the LSB it could be something like that
21:07<Julian>Anti-spam somewhat ignores anti-forgery.
21:07<csm>no it doesn't
21:07<Julian>Spam and forgery are rougly orthogonal.
21:07<csm>anti-forgery is a valid method for fighting spam
21:07<grumpy>"SPF is an anti-spam tool like flour is a food"
21:07<MarkK>in short, the whole ASMG deal
21:07<csm>understand me... *I AM NOT PROPOSING A NAME*
21:08<csm>though PHB's original idea had a lot of merit IMHO
21:08<grumpy>my position remains, as I first said: I'm not opposed to it, but I don't want that to distract from getting SPFv1 done
21:09<Julian>(What's "ASMG" written out? "Accountable Standards Messaging Group"?)
21:09<csm>grumpy: I don't either... that's why I proposed a committe
21:09<grumpy>"accountable messaging standards group?"
21:09<csm>and yes... your words are correct though the order is wrong
21:09<Julian>(/me just wondered because someone said ASMG a second time...)
21:09*grumpy caused the confusion
21:10<csm>was the proposal
21:10<Julian>Ok, let's see if I can reword the proposal...
21:10<csm>anyway... in order to insure that we get the SPFv1 underway without distraction I propose this committee to explore the options available and come up with a workable idea
21:10*grumpy would like to hear more from freeside on this subject.
21:11<freeside>are we going to try to handle CLEAR as well as MASS?
21:11<freeside>see, i have a specific plan for going ahead with deployment
21:11<freeside>and i want to share it with you before we make any decision about whether to use the IETF or not
21:12<freeside>but for now i'd be ok with doing a subcommittee to investigate setting up a separate standards organization.
21:12<csm>our electorate had significant interest in this (and still does) so it has to be proposed but I am trying to do it in such a way that we meet both requirements... pushing SPFv1 forward and also pursuing the other options simultaneously
21:12<freeside>so let's go ahead with a subcommittee but let's also get SPFv1 done
21:12<freeside>all of this has to happen in light of the other things that are going on
21:12<freeside>and i need to brief you on the other things that are going on.
21:12<grumpy>freeside: would you like to take charge of that committee
21:12*MarkK wants to hear more about freeside's ideas
21:12<csm>creation of a committee will allow us to do it without distrcating the council unnecessarily
21:13<freeside>no, i think it'd be best if i could give input to the committee but with your greater experience with the IETF i think you should chair that committee.
21:13<csm>which is exactly what the chair thought when he proposed grumpy for committee leadership
21:14<grumpy>Well, I see a conflict between pushing SPFv1 and heading up the committee
21:14<MarkK>I have to agree with freeside here; I would like to here more defined first what job we set out to do, before we form a committe to find the right tools.
21:14<csm>MarkK: isn't your first thing the SPFv1?
21:14<csm>that was your platform yes?
21:14<grumpy>mine too
21:15<csm>so let the council work on that now... this committee will undertake to look at the other options
21:15<MarkK>my platform is: first thins first. We can expand from that
21:15<csm>this "proposed" committee
21:15<MarkK>things, even
21:15<Julian>I think SPFv1 is first priority for all of us right now. But we have to keep the big picture in mind, so sooner or later we have to find out where to go in the long term.
21:15<csm>okay... let the chair rephrase the proposal
21:16*MarkK still likesd to hear freeside's plans
21:17<freeside>let me take a stab at respecifying the committee. let's say that it's chartered to answer the question: given a strategic direction which will solidify over the next few weeks, do we need to find an alternative forum for ratification of standards in the messaging space, and if so, what alternatives are available, and which are recommended
21:17<Julian>Well, standards-making isn't exactly the same thing as strategic planning. Who does the strategic planning?
21:18<csm>the chair is asking, essentially, if it may have the council's approval to form an exploration committee for the purpose of examining ways and means to expand, cement, build upon our existing work by creating an umbrella organization for Accountable Messaging Standards?
21:18<grumpy>maybe we should address the issue of SPFv1 first? If the council delegates the task of being the primary author of the SPFv1 draft to, say David Woodhouse, then I could easily work on the long term direction committee without conflict.
21:18<freeside>we do the strategic planning.
21:18<Julian>freeside: we == the council? Or we == the SPF project?
21:19<grumpy>or we == committee?
21:19<freeside>the council primarily and the spf-discuss mailing list secondarily
21:19<freeside>you can't delegate strategic planning to a subcommittee
21:19<Julian>I can agree on that.
21:19<csm>oh geez
21:19<csm>can I part the weeds you guys are planting?
21:20<Julian>freeside: But you can delegate research, exploration, and discussing to a committee. ;-)
21:20<MarkK>I hate to be the one to bring it up, but as SPFv1, we need some clarity too with regard to the position of MarkL
21:20<grumpy>(MarkK that is out of scope right now, but I agree)
21:21<csm>the chair requests a moment
21:21<MarkK>csm: go ahead
21:21<csm>okay look
21:22<csm>what I want to do is to go form this committee with the council's permission to explore options for the fture... we do not have to decide anything about it now except should the options be explored... a viable (or not) proposal would come out of this committee and the council can take it up at that time
21:22<csm>quite simply... do I have the councils permission to undertake that work...
21:22<Julian>I like that. (But I am repeating myself, I guess.)
21:22<Julian>AKA yes.
21:23<Julian>AKA seconded.
21:23<csm>devloving into should we/shouldn't we discussion about a proposal which does not exist is a waste of time
21:23<csm>so we have a seond... obviously the chair votes yes
21:23<freeside>yeah, you have a second.
21:23<Julian>2122a: yes
21:23<freeside>2122a: yes
21:24<MarkK>2122a: yes
21:24<grumpy>2122a: yes
21:24<csm>so labeled... so ordered
21:24<Julian>One moment.
21:24<Julian>I propose that the AMSG1 vote be retracted.
21:24<csm>now... at this time the chair passes the conch to freeside and must exit to undertake some pressing family business... I will look over the rest of the discussions when I have a chance to return
21:25<csm>AMSG1 retraction: second
21:25<grumpy>why is this being retracted?
21:25<Julian>Because it either is redundant to or conflicts with 2122a.
21:25<csm>it's the first proposal... we voted and approved it and then fell into discussion...
21:25<MarkK>replaced by 2122a, right?
21:26<freeside>sounds good to me
21:26<csm>freeside: you have the conch!
21:26*grumpy agrees, AMSG1 appears redundant to me.
21:26<Julian>One more formal matter:
21:26<grumpy>ok freeside, call a vote on the retraction?
21:27<Julian>(ok, I'll wait until after the retraction vote.)
21:27<freeside>csm's the chair, he's calling the vote
21:28<freeside>oh, he's passing the conch
21:28<freeside>silly csm
21:28<freeside>fine, 2128a: vote to retract the AMSG1 vote in favour of the 2122a vote
21:28<freeside>2128a: yes
21:28<Julian>2128a: yes
21:28<grumpy>2128a: yes
21:28<MarkK>2128: yes
21:28<MarkK>2128a: yes
21:28<freeside>okay, phew
21:28<Julian>Ok, one more formal matter:
21:28<Julian>I propose that council members _should_ (but aren't strictly required to) announce planned absence times ,if greater than about 2d, on the council list.
21:29<freeside>er, fine
21:29<freeside>we don't need to vote on that.
21:29<Julian>Fine with me.
21:29<Julian>So it's just for the minutes.
21:29<freeside>i'll start: my calendar is at u=mengwong&v=1&y=2004&m=11&n=fsConferences.ics
21:30<Julian>I have seen it. I don't have a public calendar, though.
21:30<grumpy>(btw, thanks for posting that earlier meng)
21:30<freeside>so i'll be on a plane next week.
21:30<freeside>is there any other business?
21:30<freeside>somebody wanted to say something about something.
21:30<freeside>before something, or after something else.
21:30<freeside>but now's a good time for it.
21:31<grumpy>What do we want to do about creating an official SPFv1 standard?
21:31<MarkK>julian wanrted to say something, I believe
21:31<Julian>Are we going to perform all future council votes on this IRC channel? Or do we want a more formal procedure?
21:31<freeside>i propose that we adjourn the discussion about bylaws and a corporation for the next two weeks.
21:31<grumpy>2131a: seconded
21:31<Julian>2131a: seconded
21:32<freeside>2131a: about adjourning the discussion, i hope: yes
21:32<MarkK>2131a: yes
21:32<grumpy>2131a: yes
21:32<Julian>2131a: yes
21:32<grumpy>how about Julians question?
21:32<freeside>okay, so, what do we want to do about creating an official SPFv1 standard.
21:32<grumpy>I think IRC is fine, and better than a mailing list.
21:32<freeside>before we get into that, i think we should talk about my Sekr1t Planz
21:33<Julian>freeside: Great! Go ahead!
21:33<freeside>so, part of my election platform was that i wanted to get a bundle of thingies implemented
21:33<freeside>basically, i've spent the last few months working on a unified implementation, which you can see at
21:34<freeside>the idea is that when faced with SPF/HELO, SPF/MAIL-FROM, CSV, DK, etc, you do "all of the above",
21:34<freeside>in some kind of rational way that does the right thing.
21:34<freeside>i posted the source code to my mengmail algorithm some time ago. it's working well.
21:34<freeside>so, let me discuss the difference between a specification and a standard.
21:34<freeside>well, rather, what i think of as a standard.
21:35<freeside>modern email is made up of a bunch of specifications: rfc2821, rfc2822, the thing on mime, the thing on i18n of subject and froms.
21:35<freeside>a "standard" implementation of email will do all of those things. some of them are done by the MTA, some are done by the MUA, some are done by both.
21:35<freeside>but either way, the whole package is what people think of when they think of email.
21:36<freeside>so, i think that what we have in the way of SPF Classic, CSV, BATV, SES, Sender ID, DK, IIM, and so on, is a lot of specifications.
21:36<freeside>Sender ID itself is made up of something like 4 separate documents.
21:36<freeside>now, if we take all of these specifications together, and roll them together, we have something that we can more confidently call a Sender Authentication Standard.
21:36<Julian>But there's a log of redundancy in the whole of SPF, CSV, BATV, SES, S-ID, DK, IIM, ...
21:37<freeside>the redundancy is why we need something like Unified SPF to make sense of the whole thing.
21:37<freeside>Unified is basically a meta-algorithm that talks about how to put the individual specifications together.
21:37<freeside>so that's my vision.
21:37<freeside>right now, i'm working to obtain a bunch of money from the US Govt to make this a reality.
21:37<MarkK>I commented today on the use of HELO; HELO checks, imho, will play an important part in getting things integrated
21:38<Julian>I also plan to comment extensively on the HELO/Unified issue.
21:38<freeside>now, to get all this code actually written, we're going to need to pay people.
21:38<freeside>because it's getting to the point where it's a lot of work and more than we can really do in our spare time.
21:39<freeside>so, i've written a proposal that i'll send out to the list.
21:39<freeside>specifically, the spf-private list.
21:39<Julian>When does the official meeting end?
21:39<freeside>because grant applications are a competitive process.
21:40<freeside>in about 20 minutes, i think.
21:40<MarkK>I would like to point out that thins like SES, while promising, are not fully solidified yet
21:40<freeside>yeah, no kidding :)
21:40<freeside>so, i want to ask the council to review my proposal because that might give a perspective on how to make some of the other decisions.
21:40<freeside>specifically, what to do about SPFv1.
21:41<grumpy>So, we are putting the discussion of SPFv1 on hold until we see your proposal?
21:41<Julian>I still have some logistical proposals. Shall I post them to the council list, so we can discuss them and vote them next weekend?
21:41<freeside>yes, go ahead and post the logistics proposals to the council list.
21:41<grumpy>s/we are putting/we are talking about putting/
21:42<freeside>i don't want to put the discussion of SPFv1 on hold, but i do want to revisit whatever we decide on SPFv1 after everyone's seen the proposal.
21:42<MarkK>fair enough
21:42<freeside>so, with that said, grumpy can please go ahead and talk about what to do with SPFv1.
21:42<freeside>as we do that, we need to keep in mind a few points: the discussion of what should go into SPFv1 is separate from the discussion of how to get SPFv1 out there.
21:43<grumpy>Well, as I mentioned on the list, I have very obvious biasis about what should and should not be in the SPFv1 draft, so I'm not sure that it is appropriate for me to lead this discussion.
21:43<Julian>freeside: Without question.
21:43<freeside>how to get SPFv1 out there is a matter for the subcommittee, but what should go into SPFv1 is something we can decide now
21:43<freeside>like, for example, the SPF/helo thing.
21:43<freeside>would julian like to talk about the spf/helo thing?
21:44<Julian>Why not. Strictly viewed, HELO is meaning less according to the RFCs. We do have two options:
21:44*MarkK has already made his HELO position clear on the private list today
21:45<Julian>1. Ignore HELO (which may imply trouble for MAIL FROM: <> messages), or 2. define HELO to be meaningful (and require all "broken" MTAs out there to change).
21:45<Julian>Do you see any alternative routes? If not, what do you think about those two routes? Which one would you prefer?
21:45<freeside>can you expand on 2?
21:46<freeside>do you mean we require HELO to be an FQDN?
21:46<freeside>or do you mean we require HELO, if it is an FQDN, and if it has an SPF record, to pass for spf/HELO?
21:46<Julian>Well, 2. means that we want to be able to use HELO for useful purposes. I'd say HELO should be a valid domain, not a hostname.
21:46<MarkK>freeside: FQDN is already a requirement
21:46<Julian>MarkK: HELO isn't strictly required to be anything.
21:46<freeside>hostnames are domains.
21:47*grumpy invisioned freeside's second option "or do you mean we require HELO, if it is an FQDN, and if it has an SPF record, to pass for spf/HELO?"
21:48<Julian>Requiring HELO to be valid (for whatever definition of "valid" you choose) only in certain cases makes little sense, I think.
21:48<freeside>i think requiring HELO to be valid is a good idea, but not strictly within the scope of SPF, and would require us to fight too big a battle elsewhere.
21:48<freeside>i would rather just test SPF/HELO if HELO happens to be an FQDN.
21:48<Julian>I too think the battle would be too big for us.
21:49<freeside>if it is not an FQDN, then too bad, and we punt.
21:49<grumpy>"let other Receiver Policies decide"
21:49<freeside>for values of Receiver Policies including CLEAR
21:49<freeside>it seems that CLEAR people are willing to go fight that battle, so why should we get in their way, eh.
21:49<grumpy>Clear has to punt in cases of unqualified names
21:49<Julian>You mean, if an MTA admin wants to protect his HELO name, he can just publish an SPF record for it, and others who don't mind don't have to do anything?
21:49<grumpy>freeside: they are? I don't think so.
21:50<freeside>okay, well, it's not really relevant for us either way.
21:50<freeside>anybody else have anything to say on this issue?
21:50<grumpy>Julian: yes.
21:50<Julian>freeside: Yes, wait a moment.
21:51<MarkK>Julian: doen't RFC 2821 say HELO should at least be a FQDN? (but also say not to reject on it if it does not verify)
21:52<MarkK>freeside: yes, I do
21:52<Julian>Considering we want to prevent return path forgery, is it useful to protect MAIL FROM: <> messages' only identity (i.e. HELO) in the first place?
21:53<MarkK>I envision HELO to play a big part in whitelisting/karma stuff; where we define a valid HELO as
21:53<grumpy>I think so. and I think that there should be at least an option to always protect the HELO
21:53<Julian>I mean, MAIL FROM: <> messages' return path isn't used for anything useful anyway, is it?
21:53<MarkK>'a FQDN which resolves to the IP of the connecting host"
21:53<Julian>MarkK: I agree that HELO-based whitelisting is a good thing.
21:54*Julian looks up RFC 2821.
21:54<grumpy>The interpetation I've always used is that "in cases of MAIL FROM:<>, it is the client MTA that is creating and sending the message, and therefore it should be verified."
21:55<Julian>What do you mean by "it should be verified"?
21:55<MarkK>Julian: RFC 2821, section Extended HELLO (EHLO) or HELLO (HELO), "The argument field contains the fully-qualified domain name of the SMTP client"
21:56<grumpy>by checking an SPF record
21:56<Julian>MarkK: Yes, but also: "In situations in which the SMTP client system does not have a meaningful domain name [...], the client SHOULD send an address literal, optionally followed by information that will help to identify the client system."
21:57<MarkK>yes, either a FQDN/address literal
21:57<Julian>"...optionally followed by [stuff]"
21:57<Julian>I think RFC 2821 is relatively useless where the definition of HELO is concerned.
21:57<grumpy>I would like to point out that if we can say that "This SPF-classic spec, while the wording is largely new, has only minor technical changes from the 200406 spec, released 6 months ago. It is therefore stable.", that such a statment is very useful.
21:57<freeside>ok, for clarification purposes, i'm going to propose a vote 2150a: that the Official SPFv1 Spec, however it may eventually hatch, should allow SPF checking on HELO. if the HELO hostname is an FQDN, and if that hostname has an SPF record, a receiver MAY perform an SPF/HELO check. i mean, it's been that way ever since Hector hectored us into doing it that way, and if the SPFv1 spec is to document existing practice, then it should include that.
21:58<grumpy>freeside: I agree
21:58<freeside>(maybe we can hatch an SPFv1 draft as two drafts: one, spf-protocol, and another, spf-usage, which discusses the helo and the mail-from scopes.)
21:59<Julian>Strategically, I think we should find out what other groups are planning with regard to re-defining HELO, so we don't build up a new obstacle for a good redefinition of HELO.
21:59<freeside>mm, good idea
21:59<Julian>Also, ...
21:59<Julian>Also, I think freeside is right with 2150a. ;-)
22:00<grumpy>(to the best of my knowledge, only the CSV folks are really actively dealing with the HELO domain and they are not trying to change anything. "*IF* you want to pass CSV, you *MUST* do ...", not "All client MTAs must pass CSV")
22:00<freeside>we should figure out what others want to do with HELO, but for now, i don't see any harm in accommodating existing practice.
22:00<Julian>freeside: Does 2150a imply that HELO has to be resolvable to an A record? Or just to an SPF record?
22:00<freeside>just an SPF record, no A record
22:01<freeside>the resolution to an A record is done in 2821, we don't need to do that
22:01<grumpy>the A record requirement is a Receiver Policy.
22:01<Julian>Good, so I could set my MTA to say "HELO domain" instead of "HELO mta.domain", and thus just re-use my classic SPF record?
22:01<freeside>that's what works for hotmail now.
22:01<Julian>I like that.
22:02<freeside>i mean, you may violate 2821, but that's between you and 2821.
22:02<MarkK>as long as "domain" is a FQDN
22:02<Julian>Yeah, of course.
22:03<MarkK>is 2150a on the floor now?
22:03<Julian>Ok, do we want to vote on 2150a?
22:03*grumpy notes the time and says he can go 30-60 more minutes
22:03*grumpy seconds 2150a
22:04<MarkK>2150a: yes
22:04<grumpy>2150a: yes
22:04<Julian>(HELO should have been $domain instead of $mta.$domain from the beginning, but I digress...)
22:05<Julian>2150a: yes (although freeside hasn't called for the vote)
22:05<freeside>okay, good
22:05<freeside>2150a: yes
22:05<freeside>so, we've made some progress
22:05<freeside>can we adjourn or do we need to proceed with any further business?
22:06<Julian>Nothing official that has to be done immediately.
22:06*MarkK needs to go soon; this may indeed be a good time to adjourn, as far as I'm concerned
22:06<freeside>grumpy, is there anything you're grumpy about?
22:07<grumpy>I think there are going to be a lot of technical decisions about the SPFv1 spec, and I'm not sure that we can vote for them all here.
22:07<freeside>hey, we just voted to put HELO back in
22:07<freeside>that only took 20 minutes
22:07<freeside>so let's adjourn until next week or sooner.
22:07<grumpy>yes, but what about Received-SPF, or zone-cuts, or positional modifiers,
22:08<freeside>we can vote on that next week or sooner.
22:08<MarkK>We canm discus thosre matters on the list too, of course
22:08<Julian>I think we should call for discussion of technical issues on spf-discuss in order to rehash all the arguments a day or two before we do an official vote.
22:08<freeside>i think one person should be appointed to rehash the issues, rather than inviting everyone to jump in again
22:08<MarkK>and yes, we need to talk a bit about the format of the Received-SPF header too
22:09<freeside>let's bring that up on the list. julian, thanks for being secretary, we'll see minutes from you i hope
22:09<Julian>freeside: Of course. :)
22:09<freeside>csm, thanks for being chair. everybody else, thanks for being on the council.
22:09*grumpy agrees with freeside
22:09<Julian>Thanks for the productive meeting.
22:09*freeside has kicked you off channel #spf-council (meeting has ended)
22:09<grumpy>ok, back to seeing my kids!
22:10<freeside>i'm off to the mall, myself
22:10<MarkK>ok, we're adjourned then :)
22:10*Julian goes to prepare the minutes.
--- Sun Dec 5 00:32:04 UTC 2004 ---
00:32<csm>anybody still here?
20:04*Julian is working on setting up a wiki for the council where resolutions and other "official" stuff can be posted.
20:07<csm-laptop>wiki's are evil
20:07*csm-laptop hates them
20:07<Julian>It's restricted to council members.
20:07<csm-laptop>why not a MOS site?
20:08<csm-laptop>Mambo Open Source
20:08<Julian>Huh? Only remotely heard of that once before...
20:09<csm-laptop>it allows editing by more than one person but is much more controlled and better formatted than a wiki
20:10<grumpy>Hey guys.
20:10<grumpy>freeside: you aren't on #spf!
20:11<Julian>csm-laptop: I think we should move our discussion to #spf.
20:12<csm-laptop>me too

This report was generated at Mon Dec 13 03:10:35 UTC 2004.