This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on irc.pobox.com. 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: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html.

This log can be can be viewed at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2004/12/12_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
csmChuck Mead
freesideMeng Weng Wong
grumpyWayne Schlitt
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)

--- Mon Dec 6 20:31:49 UTC 2004 ---
20:31<grumpy>channel test!
--- Tue Dec 7 13:06:47 UTC 2004 ---
13:06<MarkK>hello Julian
13:07<MarkK>How come 0pm3 has not auto-opped you?
13:08<Julian>MarkK: I guess 0pm3 is a little off...
13:10<MarkK>I was wondering what your ideas are regarding the SPF positon letter, such as brought up by wayne
13:12<Julian>I'm going to reply to it soon.
13:12<MarkK>good :)
13:14<MarkK>At any rate, I just requested the chair put the 'sendmail' whitepaper on the agenda, too; the matter is related, of course
13:48<Julian>later
16:01<Julian>{0pm3}: Thanks.
22:54<MarkK>Chuck, did you receive my request to put our possible response to the 'sendmail' paper on the agenda?
23:12<grumpy>MarkK: I bet csm saw you post to spf-council, I did.
23:13<grumpy>I sent csm a private email with several other items (things left over from my unofficial rough agenda from the 1st meeting). Talking with him, he said that, in general, he doesn't think posting to spf-council for agenda items is needed. just send them to him.
23:14<grumpy>the exceptions are things that require background reading and such.
23:14<grumpy>do you have a response to the sendmail whitepaper written?
23:19<MarkK>not yet; but if we decide such, I certainly would like to be a part of that.
23:20<MarkK>regardless of our position on SenderID, I think we really would benefit from sending out such a paper of recommendations/pitfalls using SPF.
23:22<grumpy>I think it would be far more effective for the council to approve/not-approve an existing document, than to authorize some unspecified document.
23:22<csm-laptop>MarkK: it would be helpful to have a response available we could assess
23:23<grumpy>people shouldn't have to wait for council "approval" before they do things. The council would have to approve the final result anyway.
23:23<MarkK>I will gladly draft one; but I think I will need your input on some of our positions, regarding SRS, etc.
23:23<grumpy>sure
23:24<csm-laptop>okay
23:24<MarkK>a response to that sendmail paper has really been high on my mental agenda of things I wanted to do. :)
23:24<csm-laptop>but draft something
23:24<csm-laptop>:-)
23:24<csm-laptop>do we need to discuss this here btw?
23:25<MarkK>I think so, yes; especially in light of wayne's desire to make the SenderID position offcial
23:26<grumpy>csm-laptop: you mean, in this channel?
23:26<csm-laptop>yes
23:26<MarkK>Or do you mean to wait until the next meeting?
23:26<grumpy>if so, I think it is marginally "yes". We are talking about policies of the council
23:27<grumpy>we don't have a quorum, so it isn't official, but freeside/julian could comment later.
23:28<csm-laptop>okay... well from a policy standpoint I'd like to see a draft and then we can take it from there
23:28*grumpy agrees
23:29*MarkK points out he is not officially asking, just loosely feeling out other council members on the adviseability of things. :)
23:29<csm-laptop>okay... well from a policy standpoint I'd like to see a draft and then we can take it from there
23:29<csm-laptop>:-)
23:29<MarkK>btw, this morning I asked both Meng and Julian, also informally, whether they would care to comment on wayne's proposal
23:30<csm-laptop>which?
23:30<MarkK>to make the SenderID position paper our official position
23:30<csm-laptop>okay
23:31<csm-laptop>well I think we need to work on it a bit (and yes I know the objections to changing it but I think we may have to)
23:33<grumpy>speaking of misc policy, I changed my scripts to only post IRC logs to spf-council if there are more than 50 lines of text. I don't think that the logs are that time critical.
23:33<csm-laptop>yeah... good idea
23:34<MarkK>I just want to say, in general, that I want to be careful not to come off too anti-MS per se; people could perceive this as 'childish', right or wrong. Though even in the response to the sendmail paper I will draft, I plan to make it clear how incompatible things really are. I just do not want us to make an anti-MS, or any anti-any-other-proposal thing, really.
23:34<grumpy>I think anything that doesn't praise the PRA will be claimed, by some, to be anti-MS.
23:36<MarkK>that is their intepretation, then; but there is still a difference between us bashing MS, and them drawing their own inference that we do not see PRA working.
23:36<csm-laptop>I don't give a flip if someone accuses me of being anti-microsoft... I *AM* anti-microsoft!
23:36<grumpy>I'm not.
23:36<grumpy>(or, at least, I don't try to be.)
23:36<csm-laptop>cool
23:36<csm-laptop>but we both have a right to our opinions
23:36<csm-laptop>I've earned mine and I'm sure you have as well
23:36<grumpy>MarkK: do you think the current SenderID position statement is anti-MS? If so, what about it?
23:37<MarkK>csm; so am I, after a fashion; but I think I should not be in an 'official' capacity.
23:37<MarkK>csm; yes, it feels that way
23:37<csm-laptop>MarkK: I will not change my position in personal or official capacity
23:38<MarkK>I mean, I signed it, and agree with it; but as official position of SPF, I do not think it serves well.
23:39<MarkK>csm; I respect that; but I try and keep my personal misgivings about MS out of 'official' things; for one, because it is not very effective, I think.
23:39<grumpy>MarkK: what parts of the position statement do you think is anti-MS?
23:40<grumpy>e.g., what should be changed?
23:40*MarkK goes and fetch it; hang on...
23:42<MarkK>For one, " ... proposal is technically unsound and undermines the progress already begun by SPF." That feels like a political statement; and if it were me, I would have likely ommitted such phrases.
23:44<MarkK>I mean, similarly, SES undermines SRS; but I would not write a paper stating they bad because they undermine SRS. :) Well, not entirely the same, but you get my drift.
23:45<csm-laptop>Sender-Id is clearly attempting to ride SPF's coat tails... that's not politics... it *IS* an observation based on a simple analysis of the facts as we know them todate
23:45<grumpy>Actually, I disagree that SES undermines SRS. If there is any conflict, it is that SRS could undermine SES if the SRS is always done.
23:46<MarkK>csm: of course MS blatantly used SPF, its records, and ran with it. But is it our place to say so?
23:47<csm-laptop>yes it *IS* our place... we are the ones who know it
23:47<csm-laptop>who else will if we do not?
23:47<grumpy>there are cases that using the SPF records causes incorrect results when used in the PRA.
23:47<MarkK>csm: I think we agree on the facts, as they happened;
23:47<csm-laptop>we have no obligation to be nice... they rail roaded us... now I don't want to go crazy and start saying "hate" things... but I will not turn away from stating the facts as I know them
23:47<grumpy>that undermines SPF
23:48<MarkK>grumpy: yes, and those I want to document, in the answer to the sendmail paper
23:49<MarkK>I mean, don't get me wrong, I want to be every bit as vocal about that PRA should *not* be used with spf records; I just want to keep politics out of it.
23:49<csm-laptop>this is not politics...
23:49<grumpy>One thing that William suggested be put on the agenda, and I agree, is for the council to answer the question "Is SPF just an essential part of SenderID?" Or, are SPF and SenderID separate items, with SenderID really just being the PRA?
23:49<csm-laptop>I want us to state the facts... irrefutable facts
23:49<MarkK>I want ppl to read it, and conclude for themselves, "Hmm, PRA really sucks," without us actually saying it. :)
23:50<grumpy>When the possition statement was written, SenderID was being clearly promoted as the heir of SPF
23:50<MarkK>grumpy: I want to see that question answered too
23:51<grumpy>In many ways, answering that question may make giving support or not to the position statement irrelevant.
23:55<MarkK>Another example, "PRA" (Purported Responsible Address) as it is implemented within SenderID, has many technical problems that make it unsuitable for use in the real world." I would rather draft a paper in which, using polite examples, the reader draws the same conclusion, for himself. :)
23:56<grumpy>I can agree with that.
23:56<grumpy>although I don't see that as anit-MS
23:56<grumpy>so far, you haven't shown anything that I think is really anti-MS, despite several people's claims.
23:56<grumpy>It is anti-PRA
23:57<MarkK>grumpy: nor do I. :) Facts are always ok; if our paper simply shows that using PRA leads to great trouble, then that is not anti-MS; I just want ppl to reach that conclusion for themselves.
23:58*grumpy agrees
23:59<MarkK>Our official relation with MS seems pretty much over, anyway; seeing how they childishly removed a link to us.
--- Wed Dec 8 00:00:01 UTC 2004 ---
00:00<MarkK>but Meng would have the inside scoop on that
00:00<grumpy>I don't know if MS really had a relationship with "us". They had one with Meng, and maybe MarkL.
00:00<MarkK>true enough
00:04<MarkK>welcome back :)
00:05<csm-laptop>he-he
04:53Perlxchat_print called without a valid context.
05:02<grumpy>test
15:49*MarkK is working on sendmail paper
17:54<grumpy>Proposal: I think we should be able to create official proposals outside of designated meeting times by either saying so here, or posting to SPF-council.
17:54<grumpy>If a quorum (4 council members) vote yes or no, then the vote is valid.
17:54<grumpy>Council members who would like to discuss the proposal more should say so, and if a quorum can't be reached (2 council members saying so), then the proposal should be delayed until the meeting.
17:55<grumpy></proposal>
17:55<grumpy>I think this may be required in order to deal with the different timezones that we are all in.
17:55<MarkK>wayne: just reading up on the list, did I understand you correctly that you do noy want council member(s), me, in casu, to work on the sendmail paper?
17:55<grumpy>Ugh, no, not at all.
17:55<grumpy>I *want* you to work on it
17:56<grumpy>just not wearing your "council member" hat.
17:57*grumpy just realizes that "no, not at all" is ambiguous.
17:57<MarkK>I see; that is ok with me; besides, I would not presume to know exactly what 'we' want anyway; any draft I make will have to pass the review of many first
17:58<grumpy>exactly.
17:59<csm-laptop>I respect william's opinions but each council member expressed a platform and was elected based on that platform... not everyone toed the line of his IETF model
18:00<grumpy>I thought we agreed to follow the IETF WG model in our first meeting.
18:00*grumpy goes and checks
18:01<MarkK>I mean, just to get a few basics right, 'we' do agree on forwarders, and anyone else doing outgoing mail, including mailing lists, to be responsible in their MAIL FROM, right?
18:02<MarkK>And is 'our' position still that we want those forwarders to do SRS?
18:08<csm-laptop>is their an MLM that does not deal with MAIl FROM and return path?
18:12<MarkK>I ask because the position of the sendmail white paper was, rather strangely, that mailing lists should change the MAIL FROM, but forwarders, strangely enough, should not. Whereas I would say that any relay with outgoing mail should behave responsible and take responsibility for the MAIL FROM.
18:12<grumpy>any comments on my proposal of 1954a?
18:13<csm-laptop>grumpy: nope... not yet
18:13<MarkK>I'm sorry, I do not see 1954a
18:13<csm-laptop>I am thinking about it though
18:13<csm-laptop>and I'm not sure it's 1954
18:13<csm-laptop>what was UTC at 1254 EST?
18:13<csm-laptop>it's 1754a I think
18:14*grumpy can't add
18:14<csm-laptop>5 hours different for UTC
18:14<grumpy>6 hours for me, and 1154 + 600 is 1954, right?
18:14*grumpy sighs
18:14<csm-laptop>he-he
18:14*csm-laptop gets 17 but then... it's only simply math
18:15<csm-laptop>anyway I am thinking about it... I may express an opinion later but I wait for group concensus anyway....
18:15<MarkK>I guess I was not logged on then; will go see the logs
18:16<csm-laptop>MarkK: on the MAIL FROM thing... I had pretty much figured that if I ever let anybody forward I will give them a proper procmail script to do it with...
18:16<csm-laptop>no SRS required
18:19<MarkK>wayne, is this your proposal about being able to submit proposal for the council's consideration?
18:19<MarkK>csm: how will that procmail script do this without SRS?
18:20<grumpy>MarkK: Yes, I think we need to be able to deal with proposals outside of meetings.
18:21<grumpy>csm/MarkK SRS issues should be discussed on #SPF, IMHO
18:22<grumpy>thinking about it, there should probably be a timeout period for out-of-meeting proposals, both for getting a second and for getting a quorum.
21:34<grumpy>thanks julian
21:34<Julian>np
--- Thu Dec 9 15:31:01 UTC 2004 ---
15:31<Julian>Regarding the positions we formed last Saturday, is it the "Council Chair", or just "Chair"? "Council Executive Director" or just "Executive Director", or even "Project Executive Director"? "Council Secretary", "Secretary", "Project Secretary"?
15:38<csm-laptop>Chair, SPF Leadership Council
15:38<csm-laptop>E.D., SPF etc. and so on
15:42<Julian>Hmm, I think I will make a motion to rename the SPF Leadership Council into SPF Steering Council or something. This "Leadership" term has negative connotations in some parts of the world.
15:48<Julian>I'm trying to formulate the council resolutions. I don't want to write "The Chair, SPF ... Council, presides the council meetings...". That sounds odd.
15:50<Julian>I have written "The Council Chair", "The Council Executive Director", and "The Council Secretary" now. But "The Project Council Chair", "The Project Executive Director", and "The Project (Council)? Secretary" might be more appropriate.
15:50<csm-laptop>why not leave out the descriptor all together... just use SPF Council
15:51<Julian>"SPF Council Chair", "SPF Council?? Executive Director", "SPF Council Secretary"?
15:52<csm-laptop>well arguably you could simply say Chair, Executive Director, Secretary etc.
15:53<csm-laptop>but when my boss wanted to know what happened with out meeting I simply told him this...
15:53<csm-laptop>csm == Chair, SPF Leadership Council
15:53<csm-laptop>and he knew exactly what it meant...
15:53<csm-laptop>so keep it simple is my view
15:54<Julian>I still think "Council Executive Director" sounds a little odd.
15:54<grumpy>Julian: pardon my ignorance, but why does "leadership" have negative connotations?
15:55<Julian>grumpy: I think it sounds too authoritarian.
15:55<grumpy>ok
15:57<grumpy>it doesn't to me as an american, but my german/dutch have faded to almost nothing after 30+ years of disuse.
16:00<Julian>Is "competitors" a good umbrella term for "Microsoft", "CSV", etc.?
16:05<Julian>Can I write "competitors and opponents"?
16:06<Julian>I think I'm going to leave it at just "competitors" for now.
16:08<csm-laptop>why not "other protocol proposals"?
16:09<Julian>No, it's about (see URL in query window).
16:09<csm-laptop>because I do not think of the names as competitors... they are simply other proposals... there are entities involved that could easily be seen as competitors/enemies but the specifications themselves are not enemies *OR* competitors
16:12<grumpy>And, in some cases, the are complementary.
16:14<Julian>I agree. It's about "competitive information, as judged by the council, is not disclosed to actual or potential competitors of the SPF project".
16:15<Julian>That's how csm worded it.
16:15<csm-laptop>yes...
16:15<csm-laptop>excellent
16:15<Julian>(roughly)
16:16<Julian>csm-laptop: What?
16:17*grumpy is equally confused by csm's answer
16:21<csm-laptop>the wording of the statement Julian quotes is exactly what I would have chosen to describe this type of data (and I suspect I did!)
16:21<Julian>csm-laptop: See the vote log. ;-)
16:22<csm-laptop>nice
16:24<grumpy>yes, very nice.
16:30<Julian>Is this a good description of the ED?
16:30<Julian>"The ED runs the day to day operations, acts as the spokesman, and generally handles the public relations of the SPF project. Any public statements made by the ED shall adhere to the common position of the council and shall not ignore significant positions within the project community without the explicit approval of the council.
16:30<Julian>The ED may speak for himself freely as long as it is made sufficiently clear that he does not speak for the SPF project."
16:31<Julian>(I think this is what is implied by the various statements at our last meeting.)
16:31<grumpy>sounds good to me. (or, at least, that's very similar to what I remember voting on.)
16:34<Julian>So be it.
16:46<csm-laptop>The ED may speak for himself on matters where his position differs with that of the council so long as he makes it clear that his speech is his own opinion and not a bonified policy of the council.
16:47<csm-laptop>s/that his speech/that such speech/g
16:47<grumpy>fyi; Ted Hardie has just put draft-lentczner-spf-00.txt on his evaluation list
16:48<grumpy>I will send him some email about the council's recommendation for at least the HELO checking change.
16:50<grumpy>csm-laptop: are messages sent by non-council members to spf-council moderated, or silently ignored?
16:51<grumpy>I would prefer the former, if the spam problem isn't to bad.
16:51<grumpy>e.g., the email I'm sending to Ted will be cc'ed to spf-council, and if he responds, it is likely that his response should go there also.
16:56<Julian>csm-laptop: "may speek for himself freely" implies "may speak for himself on matters where his position differs with that of the council".
16:57<Julian>grumpy: Moderated sounds good, I agree.
16:58<csm-laptop>grumpy: the go to /dev/null
17:01<grumpy>could that be changed?
17:05<csm-laptop>why?
17:05<csm-laptop>no one is allowed to post except council members...
17:05<csm-laptop>all sub's know it...
17:05<grumpy>So that, if the council recognizes someone, they can speak.
17:06<csm-laptop>I have few enough cycles... and do not intend to spend them doing that sort of thing
17:06<csm-laptop>grumpy: no
17:06<grumpy>Hmmm....
17:06<csm-laptop>they can speak in spf-discuss...
17:06<csm-laptop>we hear them... all of us are there... we discuss things there
17:06<csm-laptop>spf-council is for decision making...
17:07<csm-laptop>what you are proposing would just add another unnecessary layer to the communication process... there is no need for it
17:08<grumpy>Hmmm... I guess I viewed both spf-discuss and #spf-discuss as a meeting, where spf members and others may be recognized and alowed to present information.
17:09<grumpy>e.g., if we needed to officially discuss spf-discuss moderation issues with gconnor, we could give him voice on this channel while we are discussing it in an official capacity.
17:10<Julian>csm-laptop:
17:10<Julian><grumpy> e.g., the email I'm sending to Ted will be cc'ed to spf-council, and if he responds, it is likely that his response should go there also.
17:11<csm-laptop>that's not the same thing IMHO
17:11<csm-laptop>you should not cc you should Bcc
17:12<Julian>csm-laptop: ...and then forward the reply to spf-council?
17:12<grumpy>or, since it isn't obvious that the reply is going to a public list, to spf-private?
17:13<grumpy>could it be possible for someone else to be the moderator?
17:14*grumpy volunteers
17:14<grumpy>(although it might be more appropriate for the secretary?)
17:18<Julian>grumpy: You should explicitly ask Ted in your query for the permission to publish his reply.
17:18<Julian>I could do the moderation for spf-council (and spf-private possibly).
17:19<grumpy>I did say something about that in the p.s.
17:19<grumpy>did you see the message I sent?
17:20<Julian>Not yet.
17:21<Julian>It's hard to keep up with all the traffic.
17:21<Julian>I'm still working on recording the votes on the wiki.
17:27<csm-laptop>Julian: yes... forward it...
17:27<Julian>grumpy: csm says you should forward Ted's reply manually.
17:33<csm-laptop>the thing is spf-council is for council business only... it is our place to do business... allowing others to talk is not its purpose or scope... we have other places where their voices may be raised... we should keep it that way IMHO
17:36<grumpy>csm-laptop: well, I think discussions with others as *is* the ocuncil's business, so I disagree.
17:36<grumpy>maybe we should bring this up for consideration at one of the next few meetings.
17:43<csm-laptop>grumpy: okay so lets open it up then... let everybody fscking talk on a resource that is there so we can do business...
17:44<csm-laptop>and then we can do the same here and everywhere else... and while we're at it lets just disband the council since it won't be able to have an orderly discussion as it will simply be the same old misguided meandering mishmash morass of convultion that is totally and completely ineffective!
17:45<Julian>This is not about completely opening the spf-council list. It's about moderating it so we can selectively let non-council people speak there.
17:45<csm-laptop>my point here... rhetorically... is that we *MUST* have a place where we can discuss SPF's business without interruption... there are plenty of other places where people can talk to us and we to them...
17:46<csm-laptop>Julian: not it's not... it's about resources
17:47<csm-laptop>we *NEED* a resource that is on-topic and quiet... the views of others will be considered there but they do not need to be voiced there... we have other places for that
17:48<grumpy>I really don't see this as all-or-nothing. Just like most open meetings, the chair can recognize someone, anyone, and they can say thier stuff. When the subject is close, that person can no longer talk.
17:48<Julian>Suppose the UN security council wants experts to speak before the council. They don't go out and use another room because their dedicated room shall not be disturbed by strangers, ever. ;-)
17:49<csm-laptop>I was amenable to a sort of "sunshine rule" so that people can subscribe and hear/read our discussions... allowing more than that will cause me to be very passionate in my disagreement
17:49<csm-laptop>and just like anyplace else if there is something from outside that you, or any of the rest of us do not want to have to parrot a forward will do just fine
17:53<csm-laptop>if you recall... I made an initial suggestion that we should do something like this:
17:54<csm-laptop>spf-staff: where lots of voices could be heard and the majority of the council business would be conducted
17:54<csm-laptop>spf-council: closed, hidden archives etc. where our private discussions could take place
17:54<grumpy>right, and I thought that is what we had, only named spf-council/spf-private.
17:55<Julian>grumpy: Agreed.
17:55<csm-laptop>the decision was made to go the route we have taken and now we're wanting to go even further by opening the resource up even more....
17:55<grumpy>?
17:56<grumpy>it sounds like spf-council is even *less* open than your "spf-staff".
17:56<csm-laptop>we do not have an spf-staff list...
17:56<grumpy>is it just the names?
17:56<csm-laptop>and yes... spf-council was not meant to be open... opening it as much as we have necessitated the creation of spf-private
17:56<grumpy>I don't see the difference between your "spf-staff" and the current spf-council, and your "spf-council" and spf-private.
17:57<csm-laptop>no it's not the names but what you are wanting has necessitated the creation now of 3 fscking lists where two was all that were ever needed
17:57<grumpy>no, I'm not suggesting three lists
17:57<Julian>Huh?
17:57<csm-laptop>you have 3 different types of resource that you want
17:57<grumpy>I do?
17:59<csm-laptop>og+rw, g+rw/o+r and g+rw
17:59<Julian>No.
17:59<grumpy>I think that would be spf-discuss, spf-council and spf-private
18:00<Julian>You'd have to define g and o.
18:00<csm-laptop>group and other
18:00<Julian>Yeah, thanks, that I already knew. :)
18:00<csm-laptop>group == council
18:00<csm-laptop>other == anybody
18:00<Julian>Well, but there's another class of people.
18:01<Julian>Namely people that are explicitly invited by the council to speak before the council.
18:01<grumpy>on a given subject
18:01<csm-laptop>and we can do that here
18:01<csm-laptop>in real time
18:01<grumpy>yes, I said that.
18:01<csm-laptop>if we want something they've written let one of us forward it
18:01<Julian>Will Ted Hardie come here and talk to us in real time?
18:02<grumpy>maybe, that that is kind of irrelevant.
18:02<csm-laptop>if he won't then let him write it and we can forward it
18:02<grumpy>why can't the spf-council list work like this channel?
18:02<csm-laptop>but making us moderate spf-council is silly... we know when there is something we need to here/see/read and can put it where we want it
18:03<csm-laptop>grumpy: because just as soon as we start moderating it we're going to have to actually *DO* that and I already have enough work to do and so do you and all the rest of us!
18:03<grumpy>I think I already volunteered to do the moderation
18:04<csm-laptop>fine... I am tired of this anyway... I am going to give you list ownership and you can do what ever you want with it...
18:04<grumpy>I guess that is fine with me.
18:04<grumpy>I really didn't intend to piss you off.
18:06*Julian has an appointment. CU later!
18:07<csm-laptop>done
18:08<csm-laptop>don't mistake me... I am not mad... I just think this whole discussion was silly but I concede the point...
18:08<csm-laptop>you now have moderation rights... try your personal password and make sure you can get to the appropriate screens
18:09*grumpy is checking it out now.
18:11<csm-laptop>mod test sent from an unsub'd account
18:11<grumpy>I can't seem to get in using my personal password.
18:12<csm-laptop>see PM window
18:15<grumpy>thanks, it looks like it is working.
18:15<csm-laptop>good
18:25<csm-laptop>argh... Julian has quit!
--- Fri Dec 10 15:45:28 UTC 2004 ---
15:45<grumpy>csm: just thinking about things, could it be possible to send out the agenda for our weekly meetings on Friday?
15:45<grumpy>this would let everyone, including interested observers, prepare for the meeting.
22:23<freeside>word.
22:25<csm>I already said it was going to come out today... it will be this evening my time as I simply did not have nay time in this debacle of a week to get it done
22:30<grumpy>csm: Yeah, I saw your reply(?) on #spf. thanks for updating this channel with the status.
--- Sat Dec 11 00:08:29 UTC 2004 ---
00:08<csm>meeting agenda has been posted
18:33<grumpy>does the meeting start in 30 min, or 1:30 min?
18:33<freeside>yes.
18:34<grumpy>hey freeside! glad you could make it.
18:34*grumpy would have a hard time getting up at 3am
18:35<Julian>in 1:30
18:35<Julian>io:~> date -u
18:35<Julian>Sat Dec 11 18:35:39 UTC 2004
18:36<grumpy>I thought we voted last time to hold meetings at 19:00 UTC.
18:36<Julian>Uhm.
18:37*Julian is confused.
18:37<Julian>The chair wrote:
18:37<Julian>"The time of the meeting
18:37<Julian>will be 2000 UTC"
18:37<Julian>But 19:00 UTC is right.
18:37<Julian>http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/4
18:39<Julian>I guess the Chair was confused because I hadn't posted the minutes yet.
18:40<grumpy>Well, I guess we can start at 19:00 UTC *IF* everyone shows up then, otherwise we should start at 20:00 UTC as pre the announcement.
18:41<Julian>Agreed.
18:51<grumpy>cool, thanks Julian
18:52*grumpy likes the title "SPF thingy"
18:52<Julian>And that's about the minutes for last meeting, too. I was going to draft more formal minutes, but haven't managed to do it due to time constraints.
18:53<grumpy>understood
18:53<Julian>"Thingy" is a term for the UseMod Wiki off-spring software /me and a friend wrote (AKA patched).
18:53<Julian>Relating to the old English term "thing". Cf. also LOTR.
18:56<Julian>Anybody seen MarkK?
18:56<grumpy>no, not lately
18:59<grumpy>looks like 20:00 UTC it is.
19:01<freeside>werd.
19:01*freeside sends up updated proposals.
19:01<freeside>er, sends out
19:02<Julian>Hmm, I'd say if MarkK doesn't show up by 19:10 UTC, let's push it to 20:00 UTC.
19:03<Julian>If everyone's ok with that.
19:04<freeside>hey, guys, if you're just twiddling your thumbs for the next hour, please update your resume and mail it ot me
19:04<freeside>thanks
19:04<grumpy>csm hasn't said anything yet, so he might not be here.
19:04<Julian>freeside: I'll have to write up a new one.
19:05*grumpy is not twistling his thumbs, he is trying to prepare for the meeting
19:05*Julian is also busy preparing for the meeting.
19:05<grumpy>speaking of which, meng, on your sender-auth proposal, you mention that we should support Outlook Express, but not Outlook.
19:06<grumpy>isn't outlook express no longer being developed?
19:07<freeside>i'll put that in an upddate
19:08<grumpy>ok
19:14<Julian>csm: ping
19:14<Julian>Do we have a Vice Chair?
19:16<grumpy>Julian: I bet he will show up sometime before 20:00
19:17<Julian>Ok, the Secretary will now insolently assume the position of the Vice Chair and officially declare today's meeting's start to be 20:00 UTC.
19:17<grumpy>heh
19:17<grumpy>too bad we don't have a quorum to back you up.
19:18<Julian>Well, just file a complaint to the Chair. :-P
19:30<freeside>ok, message sent.
19:30<freeside>y'all check the list.
19:31*freeside goes back to working on the karma proposal
19:31<freeside>grark, i could use some help putting together the excel business plan for both of these things
19:31<freeside>who here is secretly a business plan enthusiast and a whiz in excel?
19:31*Julian is only moderately advanced in Excel.
19:38<freeside>also, i'm going to send you guys a bunch of books to help execute your leadership role ... so make sure you put a mailing address on your resume.
19:38*grumpy just went out and bought "Roger's Rules for Dummies"
19:39<csm>guys... I said it was 2000UTC in the announcement!
19:39<Julian>Heh.
19:39<grumpy>I told you he would show up around now.
19:42<csm>confusion abounds
19:43<Julian>freeside: Shipping from the US to those of us who live in the EU might be expensive. Is that going to be a problem?
19:43<csm>if I got the time wrong in the announcement one of you should had said so... I would have gladly issued a corrective notice
19:43<Julian>No problem with me.
19:44<grumpy>csm: I did, on #spf
19:45<Julian>It is in part my fault because I hadn't posted the minutes.
19:45<grumpy>It isn't really causing problems for me, and I see this as a fine opportunity to razz csm
19:46<csm>gumpy: claiming that saying my time was wrong when you said it at 00:36 is hardly an effectrive means of getting across the message!
19:46<csm>silly gump!
19:46<csm>grump
19:46<csm>;-)
19:46<grumpy>Sorry, I was out partying until then.
19:46<csm>he-he
19:46<csm>best way is to /msg or /query me... then I will see it for sure
19:47<grumpy>but, then I wouldn't be able to razz you.
19:47<csm>on the weekends in particular
19:47<Julian>WaitForSingleObject(hMarkK);
19:47<Julian>(Ok, that's just Win32 API slang.)
19:53<csm>if [ ! "$HERE = $MarkK ]; then sleep;fi
19:53<csm>augh
19:53<grumpy>Erh, don't you want that to be sleep 1
19:53<csm>if [ ! "$HERE = $MarkK" ]; then sleep;fi
19:53<grumpy>?
19:53<csm>no... /me wants uninterruptible sleep... go away!
19:53<csm>;-)
19:54<csm>but yeah... sleep 1 would be more appropriate
19:54<csm>but then the actual time depends on whether it's a 2.2.x, 2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel anyway
19:54<Julian>"$HERE = $MarkK" doesn't make much sense. Isn't it supposed to be "$HERE" = "$MarkK"?
19:54<csm>augh
19:55<grumpy>and I think it should be !=
19:55<Julian>grumpy: There's a ! prefixed.
19:55*csm notes that Julian and grumpy are both anal retentives who have deep issues with pseudo code similes
19:56<csm>he-he
19:56<Julian>csm: I do have some additional items for today's agenda. May I submit them here?
19:57<csm>Julian: I really doubt we will have itme to cover more
19:57<Julian>It's nothing major.
19:57<csm>send them to me off list and we can add them to next weeks agenda
19:57<grumpy>shouldn't agenda bashing be a normal part of the agenda?
19:57<Julian>True.
19:57*csm notes that Julian and grumpy are both "constipated" anal retentives who have deep issues with pseudo code similes
19:57<csm>;-)
19:57<Julian>csm: It's nothing major, but it's somewhat important, I think.
19:58<csm>okay we will entertain them after you are finished presenting the minutes while you still have the conch
19:58<Julian>(Oh, first another question: "Dec 09 12:25:30 <csm-laptop> argh... Julian has quit!" -- What was it you were trying to tell me?)
19:58<csm>I was going to ask you to make sure that the minutes were prepared
19:59<Julian>I see. I do have provisional minutes, which I'm going to present.
19:59<csm>NB. they do not have to be verbatim... in fact I prefer that they are not... simply capturing significant events and decisions and who voted how on what
19:59<Julian>Wooo!
20:00<csm>okay so we are now in "!" state
20:00<MarkK>evening
20:00<csm>we are ready to go
20:00<csm>the chair calls the meeting top order
20:00<grumpy>Woot!
20:00<grumpy>Meng?
20:00<csm>s/top/to/g
20:01<grumpy>freeside: ?
20:01<Julian>(The Sendmail whitepaper got published in mid-November, the Sender-ID Whitepaper at the start of December, right?)
20:01<csm>the first order of business is the minutes of the previous meeting... I would ask the secretary to now begin presentation of the minutes
20:01<Julian>Ok, here are the provisional minutes for 2004-12-04: "On 2004-12-04 20:00 UTC, the newly elected SPF Council officially met for the first time on IRC, and passed the following resolutions: <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution>."
20:02<freeside>mooo.
20:02<csm>2 minutes while the council looks over the prepared minutes?
20:03<Julian>Sure.
20:03*grumpy is ready (I read them earlier)
20:03<freeside>what sender-id whitepaper? did ms put one out?
20:04<Julian>freeside: Uh, I meant the whitepaper of yours, http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
20:04<freeside>that came out roughly the same time as the sendmail whitepaper.
20:04<csm>I have now read the minutes that I did not recall
20:04<freeside>maawg hasn't officially announced it yet though
20:04<csm>does anyone need more time?
20:05*MarkK is ready
20:05<Julian>freeside: Ok.
20:05<csm>does anyone need more time?
20:05*Julian not, of course.
20:05<csm>MarkK as you were late arrival do you need more time?
20:06<csm>s/late/last/g sorry
20:06<Julian>csm: He already said he was ready.
20:06<csm>alright... as the Secretary has presented the minutes the chair motions that the council accept the minutes... is there a second?
20:07<grumpy>scond
20:07<grumpy>second
20:07<csm>any dissent?
20:07<csm>hearing none the chair declares that the minutes are accepted...
20:07<freeside>i thought opt-out was evil
20:07<freeside>i don't dissent, though
20:07*grumpy agrees
20:07<grumpy>it is also slow.
20:08<csm>for the records that is 1506a
20:08<MarkK>nope, read it
20:08<csm>for the records that is uhm 1506p
20:08<csm>for me... convert to UTC?
20:08<Julian>Yes, please.
20:08<csm>2006p
20:08<Julian>It is 2006a (or p?)
20:08<Julian>What's "p"?
20:08<csm>well perhaps we dispense with a or p and just go with u?
20:09<Julian>Yes.
20:09<csm>2006u
20:09<csm>okay
20:09<MarkK>2006u yes
20:09<csm>the chair would like to make a second motion at this time
20:09<grumpy>second
20:09<Julian>Heh.
20:09<grumpy>oh,
20:09*grumpy blushes
20:10<csm>the chair would like to commend the secretary on his excellent work organizing the minutes and recommends a council vote approving the commendation!
20:10<grumpy>seconded!
20:10<csm>any opposed?
20:10<MarkK>thirded!
20:10<freeside>fourth
20:10*Julian also blushes. Thanks.
20:10<csm>so ordered 1510U
20:10<grumpy>Erh, 2010U
20:10<csm>yes
20:10<csm>sorry
20:11<Julian>csm: Can I have a minute now?
20:11<csm>the chair now recognizes the secretary for some additional items for consideration
20:11<csm>the conch is passed
20:11<csm>Julian: ?
20:11<Julian>Thanks. I'm sorry that I haven't managed to submit the following agenda items before today's meeting, but I'd like to propose them anyway:
20:13<Julian>1. I suggest we choose an official name for the council, other than "SPF Leadership Council". As I have already explained on #spf a few days ago, I think the term "leadership" in "leadership council" has negative connotations in some parts of the world, especially where I live.
20:13<Julian>2. I suggest we create the position of "Vice Chair".
20:14<csm>anything else?
20:14<Julian>3. (That may belong to agenda item 9, Future Elections.) I suggest we use the condorcet voting method on more complex material votes.
20:14<Julian>That's it.
20:14*Julian passes the conch back to csm.
20:14<csm>okay...
20:14<csm>in order of submission...
20:15<csm>is there an alternative suggestion for this bodies official name?
20:15*Julian proposes "SPF Project Council" or "SPF Steering Council".
20:15<Julian>(But better proposals are welcome.)
20:15*csm prefers (of those two alternatives) the 2nd one
20:15*grumpy could live with either, but likes the second one better
20:15<freeside>how about "SPF Council"
20:16*MarkK prefers the second one too
20:16<csm>what about freeside's suggestion?
20:16*grumpy could live with "SPF council" also, but slightly prefers "SPF Steering Council"
20:16<csm>frankly I think I like it even better
20:16<Julian>I'd prefer "SPF Project Council" over "SPF Council", but I think "SPF Steering Council" is even better.
20:17<csm>do I hear a motion?
20:17<grumpy>does anyone *dislike* any of the proposed alternatives?
20:17<csm>I do not like "Project"
20:17<Julian>csm: You may be right.
20:17<csm>it minimizes what we are about
20:18<MarkK>'project' has the ring of temporariness to it
20:18<grumpy>anyone else have comments?
20:18<Julian>We can always rename the council to "AMSG Steering (or whatever) Council" later.
20:18<csm>Steering is okay but I think the non-descript "SPF Council" is even better
20:18<csm>no limits fore or aft
20:19*grumpy decides that shorter is better and switches to "SPF Council"
20:19<Julian>I could live with "SPF Council". I guess I'll just have to get used to it. :)
20:19<csm>okay...
20:19<Julian>I formally propose to name the council "SPF Council".
20:19<csm>freeside make your motion
20:19<csm>ah
20:19<csm>the chair hears a motion
20:19<grumpy>seconded
20:19<csm>do we have a second?
20:19<Julian>(Clipboard rules.)
20:19<csm>okay
20:19<csm>votes
20:19<Julian>2019u: yes
20:19<grumpy>2019u: yes
20:20<MarkK>2019u yes
20:20<grumpy>freeside: `?
20:20<csm>so ordered... (it was freesides choice)
20:20<freeside>word
20:20<freeside>sorry, i'm a bit lagged.
20:20<Julian>phew. Thank you guys.
20:20<csm>next item
20:21*grumpy suggests that the ED take over the role of vice-chair when the chair is unavailable
20:21<csm>the chair motions that the Vice chair be synomymous with the ED position
20:21<grumpy>discussions?
20:21*Julian has no objections.
20:21<csm>or a second?
20:21<freeside>btw, the /\d\d\d\d([a-z])/ suffix is for distinguishing votes within the same minute, so it was to go from a to b to c and so on.
20:21<grumpy>seconded
20:22<csm>any dissent?
20:22<MarkK>seconded
20:22<grumpy>freeside: good luck trying to get us to make to proposals and votes in one minute. ;-)
20:22<freeside>heh
20:22<grumpy>s/to/two/
20:22<csm>hearing no dissent the chair orders the secretary to label 2021u approved
20:22<Julian>(I think we can drop the letter suffix. csm apparently meant it to be a or p for AM/PM, but I think we don't need it.)
20:23<csm>I want the U
20:23<csm>it's possible we could change timezones
20:23<csm>this way it's "universal"
20:23<Julian>2021u is hereby approved by the council.
20:23<csm>okay
20:23<csm>the third item...
20:24<csm>the chair requests an explanation of the meaning of condorcet
20:24<grumpy>it is a good, but ocmplicated voting system.
20:24<grumpy>debian uses it for their projects.
20:24<Julian>Condorcet was an old mathematician who conceived an optimally fair voting system.
20:25<grumpy>it isn't optimal. No voting system can be optimal.
20:25<Julian>Here's a good explanation:
20:25<Julian>grumpy: Everything, by definition, can be optimal. Just not ideal.
20:25<Julian>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
20:25<freeside>sounds good to me
20:26<grumpy>I think we should merge this into the discussion of future votes
20:26<Julian>Anyway, Condorcet is a ranked voting system, as opposed to approval voting or simple majority voting.
20:26<Julian>grumpy: (Yes, let's merge it, that's what I suggested.)
20:26<csm>okay so this goes on the topic list for a future meeting then?
20:27<grumpy>I think so.
20:27<csm>okay fine
20:27<grumpy>before the topic comes up, I recommend people reading up on the various voting systems.
20:27<csm>next order of business is the chair's report
20:27<csm>oh... Julian... email that link to the council mailing list please
20:27<csm>so we do not forget
20:28<csm>the chair has a brief report
20:28<grumpy>along with alternatives, please
20:28<Julian>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system is a good overview of the various voting systems. Yes, I will send the links to the council mailing lists.)
20:28<csm>thank you
20:28<csm>the chair has set up initial committee membership and has created a mailing list with members subscribed for discussions about the potential for an AMSG
20:29<csm>the chair anticipates discussions will commence in the coming week... so... there has been some forward motion...
20:29<Julian>Great!
20:29<csm>the chair expects to have something to report as early as the end of January in the coming year
20:29<csm>but no sooner...
20:30<grumpy>can council members observe?
20:30<grumpy>or, is this open to all?
20:30<csm>with the biggest holiday of the year upcoming the chair does not really lack the lucidity required to see that things may well not move that fast for the next few weeks
20:31<csm>any council member who desires to observe may send a request for subscription to the chair
20:31<csm>the list is, and shall remain, closed though
20:31<Julian>So the committee is private? Does this really have to be private?
20:31<csm>the chair is not interested in wallowing in the muck and the mire
20:31<csm>and yes it needs to be private
20:32<Julian>What's the name of the mailing list? spf-strategic or something?
20:32<csm>the idea here is to get some serious work done... not to be ground down into never ending debate and argument by those who have no interest in the subject and would prefer the idea not be discussed
20:32<Julian>That's ok.
20:33<csm>if you want on the list send me an email
20:33<csm>I am not going to breathe it's name here as these minutes are public
20:33<grumpy>csm: I guess I was ambiguous. I didn't intend to be world writable, I was just asking about world readable
20:33<Julian>Come on, everyone who reads the spf-council list knows that spf-private exists.
20:34<csm>grumpy: for now it is neither... once we have something to speak about to the world I may change it... but not now...
20:34<Julian>And I even think it is important that the community knows *what* official but private comms channels exist, even though the content of those channels are private.
20:34<grumpy>Ok, I guess I can deal with it being private, but I feel somewhat nervous about it.
20:35<csm>Julian: yes they do... but if you will recall I have opposed several of these ideas... I was opposed to that one... :-)
20:35<grumpy>freeside? MarkK? thoughts?
20:35*grumpy would prefer read-only access to the public.
20:35<csm>please do not forget that I have been here before with another body which is hugely successful
20:36<csm>I know how it was done... I was there and helped do it
20:36<Julian>That's hardly a good argument.
20:36<freeside>sounds good to me.
20:36<csm>an example is the lpi-board mailing list
20:36<freeside>i think that private channels will facilitate frank and honest discussion.
20:37<csm>it is not public and it never has been...
20:37<freeside>and frank and honest discussion is ultimately to the benefit of the whole.
20:37<freeside>this is wh assemblies can have closed-door sessions.
20:37<csm>but the board does the vast majority of its work on the lpi-staff mailing list
20:37<MarkK>I cannot say I am really happy with star-chamber politics; especially, if their work remains outside the scope of the council
20:37<Julian>I hereby motion that the existence and the _names_ of all private communications channels are made public.
20:38<csm>Julian: you do not own the resources being used to provide these... I am trying to avoid unnecessary banging on my doors if its all the same ot you
20:38<grumpy>I can understand the need for private discussions for good reasons, but I havent really heard any good reasons why the AMSG committee should be private.
20:38<csm><csm> the idea here is to get some serious work done... not to be ground down into never ending debate and argument by those who have no interest in the subject and would prefer the idea not be discussed
20:39<Julian>My motion doesn't imply opening the private comms channels to the public.
20:39<csm>Julian: mailman works the same way everywhere my man...
20:39<csm>just because it's not listed on the page doesn't mean you can't bang on it if you know it's name
20:39<MarkK>I am inclide to oppose, actually; but I will await a motion of that sort until I hear the others
20:40<Julian>I want to make that official policy of the council. No official comms channels should be _secret_, even though they may be private.
20:40*csm cannot support that motion
20:40<csm>but if you insist as a body I will acede to your wishes and then simply not use the mailing list
20:41*grumpy notes that julian said "channels", not just mailing lists.
20:41<MarkK>csm: can you perhaps clarify a bit what exactly those secret channels entail, and who will be in them?
20:42<csm>MarkK: there is only one of this nature...
20:42<Julian>Yes, as long as it is official (i.e. instituted by the council), its existence should be known publicly.
20:42<grumpy>csm: I hate to say it, but the more you talk about this, the less I like this ASMG exploration committee
20:42<Julian>Regardless if it's a mailing list or an IRC channel.
20:42<csm>okay I will disband it abd do it outside the councils purview then
20:42*csm thinks you guys are nuts
20:43<csm>and I also think that none of you have run a mailman list that does serious business either
20:43<csm>we are talking about *VERY* *HUGE* competitive issues here
20:44<Julian>It can hardly be more private than spf-private, can it?
20:44<grumpy>csm: the lists that I've done serious business on (multi-million) have been simple aliases.
20:44<grumpy>but then, that was a private company.
20:44<csm>yes it can because the issue is more fundamental than SPF
20:44<Julian>spf-private will be renamed amsg-private as soon as the time has come.
20:44*freeside wonders if people are talking about the same things.
20:44<csm>it's quite similar to the W3C fork of httpd
20:45*Julian also doesn't entirely get the thread of discussion.
20:45<MarkK>csm: hence my rewquest for clarification
20:45*grumpy also doesn't quite understand the situation.
20:45<csm>AMSG, if it is even a viable idea will fork a portion of the mail standards from the IETF...
20:46<MarkK>because we may, indeed, be at cross-purposes here
20:46<grumpy>hmmm....
20:46<csm>I am not going to present that to the world half baked....
20:47<Julian>There's a difference between the committee mailing list being public and it being publicly known.
20:47<grumpy>csm: maybe you could post some more details about this to spf-private and then we can make a better decision about what to do with this sub committee
20:47<csm>this is not a council list if that makes any difference
20:47<freeside>i thought we were forming a subcommittee to study the idea of whether we should form an alternative forum for standards creation, and what form that forum should take. now we seem to be discussing whether that subcommittee should operate privately, publicly, or secretly.
20:47<csm>and I do not yet have any ideas to discuss beyond what was said in the beginning by PHB
20:47<Julian>csm: But it's a list that is under the control of the council.
20:48*MarkK seconds grumpy's proposal to give the council some more time to review the concept, on spf-private
20:48<Julian>(Not technically, though.)
20:49<grumpy>freeside: I share your understanding of what we voted on, and it isn't immediately obvious why such a committee has to be secret.
20:49<Julian>"Disbanding" the newly formed committee would be bad, PR-wise. "Suspend" or "freeze" it.
20:50<csm>okay... I have said all I am going to say on this in a public forum... freeside has restated it... I have expressed it... if you guys do not see the nature of it and how divisive an issue it is well enough to understand why it needs ot be private I do not know what more I can say... you've already approved its creation as a body and I am telling you that I will not make it a publicly viewable list... if you insist that I do so I will simply take th
20:50<csm>e communications ot an alias and conceal it...
20:50<grumpy>Well, that depends on whether what csm wants to do really involves the support of the SPF community.
20:50*Julian hasn't insisted on the committee mailing list being publicly viewable so far.
20:51<csm>grumpy: ultimately it will be a gift to the SPF community and the larger community of all those who want to make email communications accountable
20:51<Julian>The council shouldn't make "gifts" to the community, should it?
20:51<Julian>(Sorry, I just find that wording a bit weird.)
20:52<csm>the chair requests that we table this issue
20:52<Julian>I also second that we discuss the committee's future on spf-private. We really should continue with our agenda now.
20:53<grumpy>Well, I guess I still don't feel I have enough information to make a good judgement on this issue. Applying the KISS principle, that leads me to dislike the idea.
20:53<csm>the chair will send a long email to the spf-private list
20:53<MarkK>I though we were about reflecting the wisheds of the SPF community; sorry, but going deep underground, disappearing for a while, and then putting that community for a 'fait accompli', I'm just not really sure we have such a mandate, nor that we should have
20:53<Julian>(MarkK: I agree.)
20:53<grumpy>MarkK: agreed
20:53<csm>and then the council can reconsider after a deeper explanation
20:53<grumpy>Ok.
20:54<MarkK>ok;
20:54<freeside>ok
20:54<grumpy>next topic?
20:54<csm>was waiting for Julian to agree
20:55*Julian has already agreed multiple times, even through a formal second.
20:55<Julian>:)
20:55<csm>he-he
20:55<csm>okay
20:55<csm>the next order of business is the ED report
20:55<csm>the chair recognizes freeside
20:55<Julian>Remember, this is a public channel.
20:55<csm>the conch has been passed
20:55<freeside>uhh
20:55<freeside>what am i reporting on?
20:56<MarkK>you tell us! :)
20:56<freeside>okay then.
20:56<Julian>The agenda says: "3. Executive Directors Report. (Meng)"
20:56<csm>anything you want... progress what ever... you get a time slice at every meeting as you have "offficial responsibilities"
20:56<freeside>so, i've been working on the HSARPA proposal to get some bucks to pay developers to write the code that implements the standards that we are coming up with.
20:56<freeside>writing the code helps us come up with standards, and vice versa.
20:56*Julian still has to read the latest incarnation of the proposal.
20:57<freeside>you know, rough consensus, running code, etc. so having the coding resources available makes it easier for us to come up with good standards.
20:57<csm>that is the link you sent us right?
20:57<freeside>i attached it to my mail to spf-private.
20:57<freeside>i'm going to submit it to HSARPA on the 15th after which point i'll publish it to the SPF group at large as well.
20:57*MarkK read the proposal
20:58<freeside>i've also shown the proposal to a few other folks who have expressed some degree of interest.
20:58<grumpy>freeside: I'll try to get you my bio/resume to you tomorrow.
20:58<MarkK>me too
20:58<freeside>so it looks like one way or another we will be able to get some money so we can pay people to get the patches writtena nd deployoed into distributions so efolks can just upgrade easily.
20:59<Julian>freeside: Are you going to include others' resumes as well ("Resumes for key personnel")?
20:59*grumpy liked what he read
20:59<freeside>yeah, i'll put in a resume for anyone who sends me one, really
20:59<grumpy>heh
20:59<csm>freeside: though I haven't read your draft yet we did discuss this and I like the idea of where you're headed and why... excellent work
20:59<Julian>Good.
21:00<freeside>so, just so you guys know, i'm going to ask funders to write the check to pobox, and i plan to control the disbursement of those funds.
21:00<freeside>i thought about having the check go to the spf council, but then i realized that we weren't a corporation and would probably have a tough time managing that.
21:00<grumpy>that sounds reasonable to me.
21:00<Julian>That's ok.
21:00<freeside>so folks are going to have to let me make some mistakes there.
21:00*grumpy agrees
21:00<grumpy>and time is short
21:00<csm>freeside: as the Council has no form under law that is all we can do
21:00*MarkK agress
21:00<freeside>now, we can discuss where we want the money to go.
21:01<freeside>there are two basic models for doing this.
21:01<freeside>one, we can hire a bunch of random indian programmers, give them the source code to qmail, and say, ok, we need a patch.
21:01<Julian>I like no. two better.
21:01<freeside>two, we can find out who the people are who maintain qmail, exim, postfix, sendmail, etc, and say to them, hey, you'd be the right person to make these patche shappen, how about we pay you for what you're doing as a hobby anyway.
21:02*grumpy likes #2 better also.
21:02<csm>freeside: you'd likely get uniform approval for #2
21:02<Julian>We could also try finding coders in the SPF community.
21:02<freeside>only instead of putting in, say, support for utf8 encodings in ESMTP responses, we ask that you prioritize doing SPF and SES and DK and all the other stuff that we think is really important.
21:03<freeside>note also that the scope of this project extends outside SPF --- the Cheeseplate library will do SPF, SRS, SES, DK, and maybe even CSV, who knows.
21:03<csm>which... btw is what AMSG (in my vision) is supposed to unify
21:03<freeside>right.
21:03<freeside>so we can have a discussion about that, but we need to keep in mind that we're going a little beyond pure SPF Classic now, with the integration approach originally seen in Unified SPF.
21:03<freeside>so in a way this stuff is a lot like Unified SPF.
21:04<freeside>now, we do have coders within the community.
21:04*Julian is not convinced that we should support DK and CVS.
21:04<csm>and AMSG (in my vision) formalizes that ^^^^
21:04<freeside>the people who wrote libspf and libspf2 and libsrs and libsrs2 should get a crack at doing the code. but the architecture is going to be as outlined in the proposal.
21:04<grumpy>For Exchange/Outlook, are you looking at MS to do the work, or for the creation of third-party patches?
21:04<freeside>and hey, if eric allman says, OK, i want to write the code for Sendmail, i think we should defer to him, along the principles of preferring #2.
21:05<Julian>Agreed.
21:05<freeside>we're going to do plugins, i think, for exchange and outlook.
21:05<csm>freeside... a question
21:05<grumpy>Julian: I'm not convinced of any proposas for the cheeseplate system, but I do think that CSV/DK/IIM/etc. should be evaluated
21:06<Julian>Evaluated perhaps.
21:06<csm>given that thunderbird has an existing plugin API did you plan to do the same there?
21:06<freeside>yes
21:06<csm>for pieces that are appropriate for client side work?
21:06<freeside>one thing we need to figure out is how to prioritize the clients.
21:06<freeside>the clients, the mtas, the mdas too.
21:06<Julian>Instead of doing DK we should do S/MIME and PGP/MIME.
21:07<freeside>i'd rather say we shoudl do all three
21:07*MarkK is not so optimistic about crypto in general
21:07<freeside>now, here's the interesting problem.
21:07<csm>Julian: I don't see the need for the council to be involved in that really... DK has a place at the table as do all the other technical solutions
21:07<grumpy>Julian: I think we should defer that discussion to another list.
21:07<freeside>we're talking about doing a cheeseplate of multiple thingies.
21:07<Julian>csm: I'm not convinced of DK's technical merit.
21:07<freeside>so, spf, srs, dk, iim, pgp/mime, s/mime, ses, csv
21:07<freeside>you do a count, and you see like 5 or 6
21:08<freeside>now, putting them all into a single library helps reduce the number of different combinations.
21:08<freeside>but let's say you'll have to patch an mta at least twice, once to do the cheeseplate plugin and once to do SRS support.
21:08<freeside>so that's two points.
21:08<freeside>then we want to do sendmail, qmail, exim, postfix, and a plugin for exchange.
21:08<freeside>2 * 5 ...
21:09<freeside>and we want to do authentication-results and received-spf for MUAs.
21:09<freeside>thunderbird, mutt, imp, squirrelmail, outlook express.
21:09<freeside>that's another five.
21:09<freeside>so it's (2 * 5) + (5)
21:09<freeside>thanks to the use of Authentication-Results.
21:09<freeside>oh, and we have to get those MTAs bundled for a bunch of platforms.
21:09<freeside>say, redhat, debian, freebsd, solaris.
21:10<freeside>so it's (2 * 5mtas * 4platforms) + (5muas)
21:10<freeside>which adds up to about 45 subprojects.
21:10<freeside>this is why i am asking for $300,000, because after you divide $300,000 by 45, you dn't actually have that many manhours for each subproject.
21:10<csm>an altogether expensive proposition if done in a closed source world!
21:10<freeside>yeah.
21:11<freeside>so, any thoughts on that problem?
21:11<csm>I think you ahould ask for $500K
21:11<Julian>LOL
21:11<freeside>MO'MONEY!
21:11<grumpy>I think csm is serious
21:11<grumpy>and I kind of agree
21:11<csm>and govt bandits appreciate the sriousness of a proposal as the dollars get higher
21:12<csm>*AND* whether you knew this or not...
21:12<Julian>I can only repeat myself: I'm not convinced of the technical merit of some of those subprojects.
21:12<Julian>So we really should discuss that privately.
21:12<csm>in their world they have to spend *ALL* their money in order to receive an equivalent amount again the following year
21:12<freeside>mmmhm
21:12<grumpy>Julian: as an active reader of MASS/CLEAR, I agree, but that is an optimization of the project
21:13<csm>freeside: every fiscal year in the govt there is a mad scramble in August and September to spend every last dime of their remaining funding
21:13*grumpy used to work for the gov.
21:13*grumpy agrees with csm
21:13<freeside>mmhm
21:13<Julian>Well, whatever. We can certainly find some common ground, but not without having discussed this in more detail privately.
21:13<csm>so you should look closely at your $ requests and bear that in mind
21:13<csm>more is better!
21:13<grumpy>Actually, some large companies (dis)function the same way
21:14<freeside>btw, there's a good backgrounder on the hsarpa situation at http://www.hsarpabaa.com/main/cybersecurity_bidders.html
21:14<freeside>particularly "baa overview".
21:14<csm>this is actually the key to understanding govt bureaucracy and where they get their power... the budget is *EVERYTHING*
21:15<grumpy>On a somewhat related subject, your proposal currently talks about only $3k. You should add in the value of the time people have donated.
21:15<Julian>grumpy: Absolutely.
21:15<MarkK>the psychology behind it is: if it is a small amount, ppl feel on the same level and want to argue about it; if it is a real big number you ask, ppl assime someone wiser and bigger than themselves have already thought about it. :)
21:16<csm>MarkK: believe it or not that's pretty close to what actually goes on
21:16<grumpy>shevek called that the "tool shed problem"
21:16<csm>read my resume... :-)
21:16*Julian asks the Chair to clarify the current topic of discussion.
21:16<csm>the chair clarifies that we are now discussing the ED's current work
21:17<csm>well freeside thank you for this report... we have heard some suggestions... I hope they are of benefit to you
21:17<freeside>okie doke.
21:17<freeside>so, yeah.
21:17<csm>do you have anything else for us at this time?
21:17<freeside>send me your resumes.
21:17<Julian>I will.
21:17<Julian>Although mine is far from impressive. ;-)
21:18<freeside>one other item of note
21:18<csm>yes?
21:18<MarkK>will do
21:18<freeside>i'm going to do a 6 month gig at earthlink as a Visiting Fellow to help them roll out sender authentication whatnots.
21:18<grumpy>Cool!
21:18<csm>he-he
21:18*grumpy noticed that somewhere
21:18<freeside>so, that'll be an interesting opportunity to operationalize some of our specifications.
21:18<csm>good for you freeside
21:18<Julian>freeside: Great!
21:18<csm>so you will be in Atlanta?
21:18<freeside>also, last friday i gave a presentation to ida.gov.sg who regulate the isps in singapore.
21:19<freeside>i think they see that sender authentication is the way of the future and SPF is the no brainer to do today.
21:19<freeside>so that presentation is online at http://spf.pobox.com/slides/20041210-sg/
21:19<freeside>so i will be in atlanta some of the time when i'm not traveling to conferences.
21:19<grumpy>I donno if everyone has already looked at them, but those are a good set of slides
21:20<freeside>that's it for what i've been up to this week. oh, and i read some books on how to do the kind of work we're doing, i'll send them to you once you get me your resume.
21:20*csm notes that freeside already has his
21:20*freeside passes the conch back.
21:21<csm>the chair motions that a press release needs to be written for a public announcement of this body and the election of officers
21:21<csm>*AND* that perhaps the chair and the ED should undertake to author it
21:21*freeside motions that the chair write the press release
21:21*grumpy agrees but doesn't know how to get a PR on PR-wire.com
21:22<freeside>ok, let's do that on the mailing list then
21:22<csm>the chair agrees to undertake this item
21:22<Julian>ok
21:22<csm>and will pass it to the ED for agreement
21:22<freeside>yeah, let's iterate it on the spf-council list.
21:23<csm>okay good
21:23<Julian>PR-wire.com? "This name was recently registered at Register.com." Huh?
21:23<freeside>prnewswire.
21:23<grumpy>ok
21:23<freeside>crap, i gotta go focus on the karma proposal
21:23<csm>does the council approve the creation of a press release?
21:23<grumpy>seconded
21:23<MarkK>seconded
21:23<freeside>you guys keep talking, you'll be in a window but if i miss a vote don't wait too long for me.
21:23<csm>any opposed?
21:23<Julian>freeside: ACK
21:24<csm>so ordered 2123U
21:24<Julian>Can we vote properly again from now, please?
21:24<grumpy>I think proper voting is actually quicker
21:24<csm>Julian: just so you know... the way I just did it is just as lehitimate under RR as the other way
21:24<MarkK>yeah, lets make things easier for the secretary :)
21:25<Julian>I think it's not a question of legitimacy, but a question of openness and directness.
21:25<csm>but... I did make it clear with this: <csm> so ordered 2123U
21:25<grumpy>I think voting is quicker and clearer.
21:25<grumpy>we don
21:25<Julian>"any opposed?" doesn't distinguish between abstentions and objections.
21:26<grumpy>t have th eproblems on IRC that physical meetings have
21:26<grumpy>and I think we can cut off the votes once the outcome is determined
21:26<csm>we had nothing but yeses... there was no opposition... RR and generally accepted rules of parliamentary procedure allw this
21:27<csm>but we digress
21:27<grumpy>Yeah, but you have to wait for the timeout
21:27<Julian>Yeah, well, ok. I'm not going to make a big issue out of this.
21:27<csm>the chair will now opens the floor for discussion on SPF's official stance on Sender-ID
21:27<freeside>positive voting is more fun, i think we should do that.
21:27<Julian>(It would indeed be quicker and easier for the Secretary to summarize.)
21:27<freeside>go on.
21:27<Julian>(freeside: True.)
21:28<grumpy>I think that SPF is a separate system than SenderID
21:28<csm>\
21:28<csm>\
21:28<csm>(separator)
21:28<Julian>$%$??
21:28<csm>for the log
21:29<grumpy>and that the SPF community should avoid using SenderID to refer to anything other than the PRA portion of SenderID.
21:29<Julian>grumpy: I agree.
21:29<MarkK>agreed
21:29<csm>grumpy: I think SenderID is a strap hanger on the SPF freight train!
21:29<grumpy>freeside: ?
21:30<freeside>honk
21:30<freeside>i think we shouldn't bash other systems, i think we should just make sure that if sender id fails the brand of spf will survive.
21:30<freeside>also, i think we should be very careful about whether the objections to sender id reusing spf records are really objections that pra sucks and is unsuitable to lmap techniques at all.
21:30<freeside>those are two separate issues.
21:31<freeside>also, a lot of people will look to MS to see what they shoudl do.
21:31<freeside>just look at ebay's records.
21:31<Julian>The point is, there is a connection between the Sender ID/PRA and SPF names. Meng has established it. Be it good or bad, it now exists. I don't think we can get rid of it. So, Microsoft (or billg) will probably get the credits for solving the spam problem. But I don't _really_ care.
21:31<freeside>my main concern is that if people bash sender id, we be clear that they're bashing PRA and not SPF.
21:31<Julian>So essentially we should just try to keep the Sender ID and SPF names from being mixed up even more.
21:32<freeside>that's happening now. but i don't think we need to deal with this ona technical level with the v=spf1 vs spf2.0 debate.
21:32<freeside>this is mostly a PR situation, not a technical protocol situation.
21:32<Julian>This is a marketing issue, right.
21:32<Julian>But there's also a technical issue.
21:32<grumpy>*IF* SPF is part of SenderID, then SenderID is appropriate to discuss on SPF-discuss. If it isn't, then we should discurage the discussion there, just like other proposals.
21:33<Julian>Let's say "Sender ID builds upon SPF."
21:33<freeside>technically, sender id = spf + pra. in everybody's minds, sender id = pra only. which is why people talk about spf and sender id.
21:33<freeside>so, on the marketing level, the things we want to happen are already happening.
21:33<Julian>No, technically, Sender ID = SPF + PRA. There's nothing to debate about that.
21:34<csm>I have a question that I think might help
21:34<Julian>But SPF is also a standalone thing.
21:34<MarkK>senderid is pra using spf records
21:34<grumpy>well, IIRC, the SG slides present SenderID as the combination of SPF and CallerID, and implies that SPF is now just a part of SenderID.
21:34<Julian>"SPF is now just a part of SenderID" -- and that's the part I don't agree on.
21:34<grumpy>I think those slides were copies of older slides, but the point remains that I think that creates market confusion
21:34<csm>I have, effectivly ignored PRA so I have to ask... is PRA a client side or server side algorithm?
21:35<grumpy>Uh, server (receiver) side
21:35<freeside>it can be done on either one, but ideally it should be done on both, i think
21:35<freeside>do you mean mua or mta, or smtp client or smtp server?
21:35<Julian>freeside: Why should PRA be done server side??
21:35*grumpy points @ freeside
21:35<csm>okay well does anyone know which *WAY* M$ intends to implement PRA?
21:35<freeside>so you can reject after the "."
21:35<Julian>It might be done on the mail store, but on general MTAs?
21:35<freeside>ms intends to implement it at both the mua and mta, i think.
21:36<csm>okay... well that helps...
21:36<csm>since SPF is "primarily" an MTA extension (other than things like spamassassin) doesn't that help differentiate from a marketing perspective?
21:37<Julian>If PRA is being done server-side, the layers (envelope/payload) are mixed up completely. Then we could just define the RFC 2822 identities to be identical to the RFC 2821 identities.
21:37<Julian>s/just/just as well/
21:37<MarkK>julian: that is why PRA is broken :)
21:37<Julian>That would cure a lot of headaches for us.
21:38<Julian>MarkK: Yeah, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.
21:38<grumpy>proposed wording of a proposal: "The SPF council would like to make it clear that SPF is a separate system from SenderID. While SenderID builds on SPF, SPF is by definition, a simpler system."
21:39*grumpy doesn't like that, but is having a hard time saying something short and direct.
21:39<csm>well I had always thought that the PRA was of very limited use in an MTA because of this "muddled" view that Julian is talking about... am I wrong?
21:39<grumpy>you are right
21:39<grumpy>but, the SUBMITTER proposal helps out with this cross-layer problem.
21:40<Julian>No, it really doesn't.
21:40<MarkK>and because MTA do not like looking at DATA (which they will need to, until SUBMITTER)
21:40<csm>okay well in my own opinion MUA solutions are not *THAT* helpful with the problem we are tryiung to solve
21:40<grumpy>But, I think our goal should be to make sure SPF's name doesn't get confused in the market and let the market decide on the effectiveness of the PRA.
21:40<csm>thus the PRA and SenderID are, essentially, irrelevant to our efforts
21:40<Julian>SUBMITTER implies that envelope and header identities are supposed to be identical. Or am I confused?
21:41<grumpy>csm: I slightly disagree, but I think the technical problems with the PRA are somewhat irrelevant to us.
21:41<MarkK>wayne: are you proposing a newly worder positional letter?
21:41<MarkK>worded, even
21:41<freeside>i'll propose a new position statement.
21:41<freeside>maybe our statement should be something like, "The SPF community recognizes that the PRA algorithm has not been widely tested, comes encumbered by a patent license, and may not be technically appropriate in a range of situations that are common today. However, the SPF community welcomes all efforts to stop spam and fight forgery, and the SPF community appreciates that the PRA may offer benefits to certain segments of the email industry. ...
21:41<grumpy>Or, my goal is to *make* the technical problems irrelevant for us.
21:42<grumpy>freeside: do we even want to address the technical problems with the PRA?
21:42<freeside>The SPF community simply wishes to inform any interested parties that SPF Classic, operating on the return-path, remains a useful alternative, has been deployed in many antispam and MTA products already, and enjoys the support of an estimated 1 million domains.
21:42<Julian>In an SPF position statement, "fight forgery" should come before "stop spam".
21:42<freeside>ok.
21:42<Julian>And, no, this is not just nit-picking.
21:43<csm>I like this very much (with Julian's modification)
21:43<freeside>According to recent research, over 20% of Internet email volume can be usefully tested with SPF Classic. We encourage continued development of SPF Classic in the email industry, as we encourage continued development and exploration of all other possibilities in the sender authentication space.
21:43<csm>it's short, to the point and it takes the high road
21:44<MarkK>yes, which I really like
21:44<csm>ooh....
21:44<csm>in the sender authentication space.
21:44<csm>how about "in the accountable messaging space."
21:44*grumpy agrees
21:45<freeside>ok, fine. ... in the accountable messaging space, including cryptographic solutions such as Domain Keys and Identified Internet Mail, not forgetting S/MIME and PGP.
21:45<MarkK>yeah; solves the dispute between authentication/authorization, too :)
21:45<Julian>"remains a useful alternative"? Sorry, but his sounds like "Ok, we're not really convinced that SPF should play a significant role".
21:45<csm>ye sit does (which is what I am specifically after... among other things)
21:46<Julian>Are we creating an AMSG position statement or an SPF position statement?
21:46<MarkK>julian: agreed
21:46<grumpy>Maybe we should do SPF right now and wait for the AMSG committee to report back
21:46<MarkK>I do not consider us married to DK yet, though :)
21:46<freeside>we're creating an spf position statement, i think
21:46*Julian reads the agenda: "5. Policy discussion on SPF's stance with respect to Sender ID. (Wayne [grumpy])"
21:47<freeside>okay, s/remains a useful alternative/is still going strong/
21:47<Julian>"still" -- same problem.
21:47<MarkK>julian: that is why I asked: does wayne propose a newly drafted positional paper? (abandoning the desite to pushf for the one already signed)?
21:48<Julian>I don't see why SPF should become obsolete sometime in the future.
21:48<freeside>well, you find a way to say that it's alive and kicking and hasn't been extinguished yet
21:48<csm>I think we can create an SPF statement while recognizing the "true" movement of which we are a part!
21:48<freeside>i gotta go hack on the karma paper some more
21:49<grumpy>can someone repost the working copy of the proposal?
21:49<Julian>Which proposal exactly?
21:49<grumpy>I think the one Meng gave, with mods
21:50<MarkK>you mean http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html ?
21:50<grumpy>I think I like what Meng posted here better.
21:50<Julian>MarkK: No, I think he means the one Meng worded a few minutes ago here on IRC.
21:51<csm>okay can you guys stand a reprise?
21:51<freeside>we CUTs, and we PASTE ... yesss, my precious....
21:51<csm>hello?
21:51<Julian>We really shouldn't draft position statements on IRC.
21:51<csm>I have edited a bit
21:51<csm>Julian: if it were long I would agree but this one is not
21:51<csm>can I re-paste please?
21:51<grumpy>I say yes
21:52<csm>The SPF community recognizes that the PRA algorithm has not been
21:52<csm>widely tested, comes encumbered by a patent license, and may not be
21:52<csm>technically appropriate in a range of situations that are common
21:52<csm>today. However, the SPF community welcomes all efforts to limit
21:52<csm>electronic mail forgery and spam and the SPF community appreciates
21:52<csm>that the PRA may offer benefits to certain segments of the email
21:52<csm>industry.
21:52<csm>The SPF community simply wishes to inform any interested parties that
21:52<csm>SPF Classic, operating on the return-path, is a powerful weapon in
21:52<csm>this fight, that has been deployed in many antispam and MTA products
21:52<csm>already, and enjoys the support of an estimated 1 million domains.
21:52<csm>According to recent research, over 20% of Internet email volume can be
21:52<csm>usefully tested with SPF Classic. We encourage continued development
21:52<csm>of SPF Classic in the email industry, as we encourage continued
21:52<csm>development and exploration of all other possibilities in the
21:52<csm>accountable messaging space, including cryptographic solutions such as
21:52<csm>Domain Keys and Identified Internet Mail, not forgetting S/MIME and
21:52<csm>PGP.
21:53<grumpy>I like that, but I it doesn't make it clear that SPF != SenderID
21:53<Julian>Ok, but what's the point this statement is trying to make?
21:54<Julian>grumpy: Exactly.
21:54<csm>it simply says that SPF is *NOT* the PRA
21:54<csm>and it encourages the use of SPF Classic
21:54<Julian>csm: But it also says a lot more, and its point is not clear.
21:54<grumpy>I think I could say that simpler and with less words. ;-)
21:54<freeside>ok, how about "the PRA algorithm used by Sender ID"
21:55<csm>freeside: excellent
21:55<freeside>and ... "accountable messaging space, including path-based solutions such as Sender ID and CSV, and cryptographic solutions..."
21:55<freeside>add one last paragraph saying "While Sender ID reuses SPF records to perform the PRA test, SPF Classic is not Sender ID, and Sender ID is not SPF."
21:55*Julian is not currently in a condition to approve of an official position statement because it is too late and he hasn't eaten anything for some hours.
21:56*grumpy looks at the time.
21:56<freeside>if that's the main point, then we should just come out and say it :)
21:56<grumpy>it is getting late for me to.
21:56<freeside>okay, let's mail the latest rev to the list.
21:56<freeside>i think we're getting pretty happy with it.
21:56*grumpy agrees, both with mailing and being pretty happy with it.
21:56<freeside>what's next on the agenda
21:56<MarkK>I would not mind seeing this on our mailing list, so we can look over the final wording not so hastily
21:57*Julian can't really determine whether he's happy with the draft statement.
21:57<freeside>6,7,8,9,10
21:57<Julian>Yes, let's finish the statement on the mailing list.
21:57<grumpy>I propose we table those until the next meeting.
21:57<csm>MarkK: good idea... I will send it to the council list...
21:58<grumpy>?
21:58<grumpy>any seconds for 21:57U?
21:59<Julian>grumpy: seconded
21:59<MarkK>I would still like to know whether this means we abandoned pushing for http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html ?
21:59<MarkK>seconded
21:59<Julian>MarkK: No, I don't think that is implied.
21:59<grumpy>MarkK: I haven't decided on that
21:59<csm>so 2157U proposes what?
21:59<grumpy>to call it quites for this meeting?
22:00<MarkK>to work on it further on the mailing list?
22:00*grumpy isn't sure about the right magic words for RRoO(r)v10
22:00<Julian>But we definitely should state officially whether http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html is approved by the SPF project (community/council).
22:00<grumpy>Julian: agreed.
22:00<csm>the chair motions that the SPF statement on SenderID will be rewotrked on the mailing list and then proposed to the community for votes
22:01<grumpy>but I don't want to decide that until after we look at some of the other statements.
22:01<grumpy>csm: seconded
22:01<csm>vites?
22:01<csm>votes?
22:01<MarkK>seconded
22:01<grumpy>2200u yes
22:01<Julian>csm: So you want to make an at-large vote for the Sender-ID position statement?
22:02<csm>Julian: given the large amount of discussion on thsi topic I feelo that we must...
22:02<grumpy>you mean now?
22:02<csm>and what I mean is not just the discussion here
22:02<Julian>We haven't even decided on election/voting methods, but if we do that in advance, I agree on an at-large vote.
22:03<grumpy>Julian: by "at-large" you mean the entire SPF community?
22:03<Julian>Yes.
22:03<MarkK>ah
22:03<Julian>grumpy: Is there a better term?
22:03<grumpy>I think it would be quicker for us to decide
22:03*Julian isn't a native English speaker, and whenever he's hungry, his English badly deteriorates.
22:03<csm>well what I have in mind is that we assemble a statement and do a simple vote wherein the community my register their approval/disapproval of the statement... if more approve than dissaprrove then we have our community position
22:04<grumpy>Julian: that is a good term, but since you aren't an native English speaker, I wanted to double check.
22:05<grumpy>I hate to say it, but I really need to get going. I'm not sure if that would reduce the quorum to under 4 or not.
22:05<Julian>I motion that we schedule another IRC meeting before next Saturday to work on the remaining agenda issues.
22:05<freeside>maybe we can deal with other things on the agenda on the amiling list
22:05<csm>grumpy: I do not want to be abstreperous here and I know that you have a great deal invested in the previous position statement... but the spf-discuss archives reveal a great deal of discussion that nees clarification... a new statement and an associated vote is IMHO clearly called for
22:05<freeside>by, like, writing emails to each other
22:05<freeside>and discussing things that way
22:05<freeside>and then when we need a vote we can do that on irc.
22:05<grumpy>csm: ok
22:06<csm>okay so one last time...
22:06<csm>the chair motions that the council will edit/approve a clear statement on SenderID and then submit it to the SPF community for approval via a vote of the community... much like an amendment to the constiution would have to be voted on
22:07<csm>is there a seond?
22:07<grumpy>seconded
22:07<csm>votes?
22:07<Julian>abstain
22:07<grumpy>2206u yes
22:07<freeside>2206u yes
22:07<MarkK>I would like to say something on that, but that would be part of our next agenda's point
22:07<grumpy>Julian: I don't think we are precluding anything on the OpenSPF statement
22:08<Julian>grumpy: That's not what bothers me. :)
22:08<csm>okay: at this time the chair tables this issue until next meeting and declares todays session at an end
22:08<Julian>But anyway, I change my vote to "yes".
22:08<csm>night all
22:09<grumpy>ok, see you all on #spf and spf-discuss
22:10<Julian>grumpy: k
22:11<csm>check spf-council email
--- Sun Dec 12 00:10:14 UTC 2004 ---
00:10<Julian>freeside: ping
00:35<Julian>freeside: ping
01:36<freeside>moo.
01:43<Julian>freeside: Would you consider giving me posting access to the spf-announce mailing list?
01:43<Julian>(Possibly moderated, if you don't trust me enough. *g*)
01:44<freeside>oh yeah, we should post and follow up
01:44<freeside>i should send out a message soon.
01:44<freeside>the last post was almost a year ago
01:44<freeside>there are a few things i want to announce too, including the whitepaper
01:44<Julian>I have just sent two messages regarding the council thingy (wiki) and the council's constituent meeting's minutes.
01:45<Julian>Nothing of that would have been appropriate for the announce list, but there may be things in the future.
01:48<freeside>okie doke.
01:49<Julian>Great, thanks.
02:00<csm>what is a "constituent meeting"?
02:01<Julian>The meeting in which a group meets for the first time.
02:04<Julian>Comes from the verb "to constitute".
03:39<csm>I don't find that in my dictionary.... at least not with the meaning
03:45<Julian>Does your dictionary know "constitutive"?
04:08*Julian goes to bed.
04:12<Julian>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says: constituent (adjective): serving to form, compose, or make up a unit or whole.
04:13<Julian>constitutive (adjective): 1. having the power to enact or establish; 2. constituent, essential
04:14*Julian is off.
16:37*freeside gotos bed.
20:29<grumpy>backslash test: \ \a \n \\ \d \007

This report was generated at Mon Dec 13 03:09:56 UTC 2004.