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/2004/12/22_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| csm | Chuck Mead |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Tue Dec 21 13:53:39 UTC 2004 --- | ||
| 13:53 | <Julian> | Random thought of the day: Let's kill the implicit MX rule. |
| 16:33 | <csm-laptop> | after receiving a complaint about email addresses in plain text and undisguised appearing in the council archives I have closed the archives and made them non-public. Anyone may still subscribe and thus view the archives but they are no longer public. |
| 16:34 | <grumpy> | ? |
| 16:34 | <grumpy> | doesn't mailman munge them? |
| 16:35 | <csm-laptop> | not when they are in the subject line it doesn't |
| 16:35 | <grumpy> | Ah. |
| 16:35 | <grumpy> | or the body? |
| 16:35 | <csm-laptop> | see Meng's first post |
| 16:35 | <csm-laptop> | I dunno for sure... I just no that I received a valid complaint and thus have made the archives non-public. |
| 16:36 | <csm-laptop> | s/no/know/ |
| 16:37 | <Julian> | csm-laptop: I thought pipermail munged e-mail addresses even in the body. But not in the subject?? |
| 16:37 | <grumpy> | can you "subscribe" by not receive any mail? Yahoo Groups has that option so that you can just review the archives |
| 16:47 | <csm-laptop> | yes... a subscriber can set himself up to not receive any mail... that option is available |
| 16:48 | <grumpy> | cool |
| 16:49 | * | grumpy has never hidden his email address, but understands why some people think it is a good idea |
| --- Wed Dec 22 04:32:27 UTC 2004 --- | ||
| 04:32 | <freeside> | hiding addresses goes against everything we stand for |
| 05:04 | <csm> | eh? |
| 05:05 | <csm> | so after receiving a direct request (that was quite derisive might I add) I am not supposed to adhere to the requestors wishes? |
| 06:00 | <grumpy> | csm: I'm not sure that freeside is disagreeing with your actions. I express a very similar opinion when I said: |
| 06:00 | <grumpy> | 10:49 * grumpy has never hidden his email address, but understands why some people think it is a good idea |
| 12:52 | <Julian> | freeside: Is the final version of the HSARPA proposal available, which you submitted? |
| 13:35 | * | Julian rides home, will be back at 14:00 UTC. |
| 13:58 | * | grumpy pokes his head in |
| 13:59 | * | csm-laptop notes that it is about 1 minute from 1400 UTC |
| 13:59 | <grumpy> | heh. |
| 13:59 | * | grumpy was just typing such a message |
| 13:59 | * | csm-laptop sips his cappucino! |
| 13:59 | * | grumpy gulps his bitter, cold coffee to make sure he is grumpy |
| 14:00 | * | csm-laptop notes that that has never seemed to be an issue for grumpy |
| 14:00 | <Julian> | re |
| 14:01 | <grumpy> | freeside? markk? |
| 14:01 | <grumpy> | hmmm... MarkK isn't even on the channel |
| 14:01 | <csm-laptop> | well... if freeside is we have a qurom |
| 14:01 | <csm-laptop> | sic! |
| 14:03 | * | grumpy sent an email to markk |
| 14:04 | * | grumpy sent an email to freeside |
| 14:04 | <grumpy> | csm: you should set up a cron job to email people 15 min before the meeting starts... |
| 14:04 | <grumpy> | hi MarkK! |
| 14:05 | <MarkK> | sorry, had to move visitors out of the house :) |
| 14:05 | <grumpy> | heh |
| 14:05 | * | grumpy remembers you saying you had visitors |
| 14:05 | * | csm-laptop smacks MarkK for being late... |
| 14:05 | <csm-laptop> | he-he |
| 14:05 | <Julian> | Please don't e-mail me automatically regarding the meetings. I do know for when they are scheduled. |
| 14:05 | <Julian> | (Usually. *g*) |
| 14:06 | * | csm-laptop thinks that perhaps meeting time announcements should come from Julian from now on... /me will simply do the agendas... |
| 14:06 | <Julian> | csm: You're still "away" apparently. :) |
| 14:06 | <csm-laptop> | no I'm not! |
| 14:07 | <Julian> | Then maybe my X-Chat is confused. |
| 14:08 | <grumpy> | my xchat says that csm is away, but csm-laptop is here |
| 14:08 | <grumpy> | ok, should we wait for Meng? |
| 14:08 | <Julian> | (X-Chat actually _polls_ the users' away status in regular intervals.) |
| 14:09 | * | grumpy notes that this meeting doesn't show up on freeside's calendar |
| 14:09 | <Julian> | Well, items 2 and 3 kind of depend on Meng, so... |
| 14:10 | <csm-laptop> | yes... csm is idle... but csm-laptop is at work and available |
| 14:10 | <grumpy> | Well, since we have been discussing the PR on the list, could we do a pre-meeting chat about it? |
| 14:10 | <Julian> | grumpy: Good idea. |
| 14:10 | <csm-laptop> | okay so... we have a quorom... |
| 14:10 | <grumpy> | I've read both csm's latest and Julian's, and I slightly like csm's better |
| 14:10 | <csm-laptop> | even without freeside |
| 14:11 | * | Julian makes a diff between Chuck's first and latest drafts. |
| 14:12 | <freeside> | moo. |
| 14:12 | <csm-laptop> | ah-ha |
| 14:12 | <freeside> | my calendar's a little out of date |
| 14:12 | <freeside> | sorry. |
| 14:12 | <freeside> | i'm just getting out of a different meeting. you guys please go ahead. |
| 14:12 | * | csm-laptop calls the meeting to order |
| 14:13 | * | csm-laptop notes that approval of the previous minutes is first on the agenda... Julian? |
| 14:14 | <Julian> | Alright. Here are the minutes from the last meeting: http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2004-12-11 |
| 14:14 | <grumpy> | I have reviewed the minutes from last week and approve them |
| 14:15 | <grumpy> | ....? |
| 14:15 | <Julian> | I had already posted them several days ago on the council list. |
| 14:15 | <Julian> | About last Wednesday, actually. |
| 14:15 | <csm-laptop> | do I hear a motion to approve the minutes? |
| 14:16 | * | grumpy motions to approve the minutes |
| 14:16 | <csm-laptop> | second? |
| 14:16 | <MarkK> | seconded |
| 14:16 | <Julian> | I don't think we need a motion for that. Just vote. |
| 14:16 | <csm-laptop> | any objection? |
| 14:17 | <grumpy> | could we just vote? it is quicker than waiting for a timeout on objections |
| 14:17 | <csm-laptop> | votes |
| 14:17 | <Julian> | Yes, like Meng said last week, let's do positive voting, it's more fun, too. |
| 14:17 | <Julian> | yes |
| 14:17 | <grumpy> | 14:16: yes |
| 14:17 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 14:17 | <csm-laptop> | yes |
| 14:17 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 14:18 | <csm-laptop> | chairman's report is next |
| 14:18 | * | csm-laptop invites comments on the press release |
| 14:18 | <Julian> | I have already given mine. :) |
| 14:18 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK, grumpy? |
| 14:18 | <grumpy> | I like your latest slightly better than Julian's latest, but I think we could go ahead with either. |
| 14:19 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK? |
| 14:19 | <MarkK> | at this point, I slightly prefers cms's latetst, succint one |
| 14:19 | <Julian> | What do you think about the comments I made? |
| 14:19 | <grumpy> | yeah |
| 14:19 | <grumpy> | I like Julian's add of the locations, I think that shows something important about us |
| 14:19 | <csm-laptop> | Julian... I like them... in fact here is what happened |
| 14:19 | <csm-laptop> | and what I propose to do |
| 14:19 | <csm-laptop> | first |
| 14:20 | <csm-laptop> | my server had some serious hiccups over the weekend |
| 14:20 | <csm-laptop> | and had to be restored at a very bad time |
| 14:20 | <csm-laptop> | so... I *LOST* Julian's email... |
| 14:20 | <csm-laptop> | I finally got it back last night... |
| 14:21 | <csm-laptop> | what I propose to do is revisit the PR adding the location information as I think it's a very nice touch |
| 14:21 | <csm-laptop> | but I don't really want to mess with the format |
| 14:21 | <Julian> | I'd like to reiterate some of my comments, then. |
| 14:21 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: Press Releases have a very specific format... to break from it invites PR newswire not to publish it |
| 14:21 | <grumpy> | please do |
| 14:21 | <Julian> | (Only the most important ones.) |
| 14:22 | <csm-laptop> | anyway... that last is my only really serious issue with Julian's text... we *HAVE* to stick with a valid PR format or they will tell us no |
| 14:22 | <Julian> | First, I'd like the PR to tell a bit about the SPF project, too. The SPF Council in itself isn't really important _without_ the project. |
| 14:22 | <csm-laptop> | one more thing |
| 14:22 | <csm-laptop> | hang on |
| 14:23 | <csm-laptop> | what I am actually proposing to do is make a couple of changes that do not effect format... including some of Julian's mods... then I will send it to the council list for "ayes" and get it published... that can happen after todays meeting so if you would all pay attention to email I would appreciate it as I would like to get this off my plate today |
| 14:24 | <Julian> | Second, the non-obious council positions (ED, Secretary) should really be explained if they're mentioned. |
| 14:24 | <grumpy> | one thing I don't like as much about Julians is phrasing such as "improve the project's cohesion and the community's cooperation with project founder Meng Weng Wong" |
| 14:24 | <grumpy> | it makes it sound like we haven't been cooperating with Meng |
| 14:24 | <csm-laptop> | I do to... and I *DO* want to include some of that stuff... not all but some |
| 14:25 | <Julian> | grumpy: I'm not sticky about the wording, but I think the statement is essentially correct, isn't it? |
| 14:25 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: PR's are not read by clue free people... interested parties will know what the different positions are |
| 14:25 | <grumpy> | yes, but we always have disagreements, that isn't something to put in a PR |
| 14:25 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ok, then what was the reason the council was created? |
| 14:26 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: if you are talking about ED/Secretary, I agree |
| 14:26 | <Julian> | grumpy: Just for the fun of it? |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | "The mission of the SPF Council is to Steer the overall SPF |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | standardization effort, promote the deployment of SPF on the global |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | Internet, and to develop and improve SPF's public messaging and |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | communications." |
| 14:26 | * | grumpy points @ csm |
| 14:26 | <Julian> | You can do all that without a council. |
| 14:26 | <grumpy> | not as effectively |
| 14:26 | <Julian> | Exactly. |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | but it can be done better without a council |
| 14:26 | <csm-laptop> | ugh |
| 14:27 | <csm-laptop> | "with" |
| 14:27 | <csm-laptop> | and another quick comment |
| 14:27 | <csm-laptop> | a very long time ago I asked Meng why he wasn't behaving like the "benevolent dictator" |
| 14:27 | <csm-laptop> | if he had it is likely we would not have needed a council |
| 14:27 | <csm-laptop> | that is not criticism btw... just a statement of fact |
| 14:28 | <Julian> | But the reason to create the council wasn't just to do it better, but to do it in a viable way, i.e. we weren't really able to do it before the council's creation. |
| 14:28 | * | grumpy notes the silence of freeside and MarkK and would like to hear from them |
| 14:28 | <csm-laptop> | yes... without the "BD" we needed a council |
| 14:28 | <csm-laptop> | or something like it |
| 14:28 | * | MarkK is letting csm finish |
| 14:28 | * | csm-laptop is just chatting... interjecting where he has an opinion... does not hold the floor alone right now |
| 14:29 | <grumpy> | Julian: I think the PR should be about telling the world how we are going to interact with the world, not how we are interacting internally |
| 14:29 | <csm-laptop> | I think the PR is to announce our existence... |
| 14:29 | <Julian> | I just don't want the PR to sound like we created the council out of fun or because we could improve our efficiency by what, 10%, or something... |
| 14:30 | <Julian> | The reasons should be in it, at least to some degree... |
| 14:30 | <csm-laptop> | so I am announcing the council's existence and the election of officers... that is the PR's sole purpose! |
| 14:30 | <Julian> | So PRs aren't supposed to give some basic background info? |
| 14:30 | <csm-laptop> | large PR's do not get accepted |
| 14:30 | <csm-laptop> | Julian... we include a URL for background information |
| 14:30 | <grumpy> | In my opinion, csm's does that, while yours drops hints of internal problems. |
| 14:30 | <csm-laptop> | but we do not bury the reader with details they can get elsewhere |
| 14:30 | <freeside> | hey, guys, i might not be able to pay attention to thi smeeting as much as i'd like |
| 14:31 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: actually, Julian's is only very slightly longer (57 lines vs 55 lines) |
| 14:31 | * | csm-laptop smacks freeside for being lame! :-) |
| 14:31 | <freeside> | i looked at the agenda and have full faith in how you guys would like to handle everything. |
| 14:31 | <freeside> | so, if i time out on votes, go ahead without me. |
| 14:31 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: we have quorom without you so we are proceeding |
| 14:31 | <Julian> | grumpy: True, mine isn't much longer, and I also proposed dropping the very last paragraph. |
| 14:32 | * | csm-laptop restates his plan for the PR |
| 14:32 | <csm-laptop> | what I am actually proposing to do is make a couple of changes that do not effect format... including some of Julian's mods... then I will send it to the council list for "ayes" and get it published... that can happen after todays meeting so if you would all pay attention to email I would appreciate it as I would like to get this off my plate today |
| 14:33 | <MarkK> | I am not really sure the PR needs to have a job-description of the council; only perhaps in the slightest terms of giving SPF community and efforts a focussed direction, or something like that |
| 14:33 | <Julian> | csm: Can I have the conch for a minute, please? |
| 14:33 | * | csm-laptop passes the conch to Julian |
| 14:34 | <grumpy> | Well, as I've said, I could live with either PR, although I slightly prefer csm's. Unless the final PR differs radically for either of those, I think we should just do it. |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | Ok, just to rehash the points of mine I consider most important: |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | First, I'd like the PR to tell a bit about the SPF project, too. The SPF Council in itself isn't really important _without_ the project. |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | Second, the non-obious council positions (ED, Secretary) should really be explained if they're mentioned. |
| 14:34 | <csm-laptop> | stop |
| 14:34 | <csm-laptop> | 1. agreed |
| 14:34 | * | Julian stops. |
| 14:34 | <csm-laptop> | 2. disagree |
| 14:34 | <csm-laptop> | go on |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | Third, the extra section "About the SPF Council" should be "About the SPF Project". |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | Elaborating: |
| 14:35 | <csm-laptop> | 3. agree in part... we need to mention both |
| 14:35 | <Julian> | If MS did a PR, they don't add a section "About the Board" or something, they add a paragraph "About Microsoft Corporation". |
| 14:35 | * | Julian passes the conch back to csm. |
| 14:35 | <csm-laptop> | stop |
| 14:35 | <csm-laptop> | okay |
| 14:35 | <csm-laptop> | on point 3 |
| 14:35 | <grumpy> | my opinion: 1) agreed 2) disagre, those positions are "obvious", 3) agree with csm |
| 14:36 | <csm-laptop> | the purpose of this PR is to announce the council not to announce the SPF Project... but as this is our first PR we need to deal with some of both and I intend to make mods that reflect that opinion |
| 14:36 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK? |
| 14:37 | <Julian> | Sorry, I don't agree. We are not making PRs in the name of the SPF Council, but in the name of the SPF Project. Or am I in error? |
| 14:37 | <MarkK> | my opinion: 1) agreed; 2) disagree |
| 14:37 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: 3? |
| 14:37 | <MarkK> | 3): agree on that it can be both, provided we make vlear the council leads what we describe for the SPF project |
| 14:38 | * | grumpy points @ mark 3) |
| 14:38 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: 'zactly |
| 14:38 | <grumpy> | Julian? |
| 14:38 | <Julian> | csm: So the MS public relations division speaks only for itself, not for the corporation? Somehow I don't get it. |
| 14:39 | <csm-laptop> | dammit |
| 14:39 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: listen for a sec please |
| 14:39 | * | Julian has listened all the time. |
| 14:39 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: calm down |
| 14:39 | <csm-laptop> | this is our *FIRST* PR |
| 14:39 | <csm-laptop> | we will never do another one like this |
| 14:39 | <Julian> | I do understand that. |
| 14:40 | <csm-laptop> | we are announcing the council's existence... once this one is done we will only speak for the SPF Community/Project but we *HAVE TO* make an initial that talks about what the council is... |
| 14:40 | <Julian> | I just don't understand why we need another "About the SPF Council" section at all, when all the prior text is about the council anyway. |
| 14:41 | <csm-laptop> | that is the *FORM* that PR's take... if you diverge fdrom the default format you risk not having it accepted by PR Newswire |
| 14:41 | <Julian> | Ugh, oh well. |
| 14:41 | <csm-laptop> | he-he |
| 14:41 | <MarkK> | If I may briefly interject to explain my previous point; it does not make much of a "About the SPF Project" or "About the Council" session; as long as we end the former with a simple line like: "The SPF Council will lead this project". Period. |
| 14:42 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: well let me make my mods and we can then vote it up or down or suggest changes... :-) |
| 14:42 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 14:42 | <grumpy> | I would prefer not to have to wait for a vote |
| 14:42 | <grumpy> | we need to get this PR out |
| 14:42 | <Julian> | Agreed. I'm not going to stick to my second point if everyone believes that "executive directory" and "secretary" are obvious and unambiguous. |
| 14:42 | <grumpy> | As I said, I could live with either, and will almost certainly like the final the best |
| 14:42 | <csm-laptop> | okay |
| 14:43 | <csm-laptop> | well I will send it to the council mailing list before I go to PRN |
| 14:43 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 14:43 | <csm-laptop> | wouldn't feel right if I didn't |
| 14:43 | <Julian> | csm: One more thing: can you please avoid having two linear lists? I think it's nasty. :) |
| 14:43 | <csm-laptop> | and I *DO* have a quote from freeside |
| 14:43 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: that mod I liked... will fix! |
| 14:43 | <csm-laptop> | :-) |
| 14:43 | <Julian> | Good. |
| 14:44 | <grumpy> | See? I will almost certainly like the final the best. ;-) |
| 14:44 | * | csm-laptop notes that the next agenda item is... |
| 14:44 | * | grumpy notes the time and suggest we move quicker |
| 14:44 | <csm-laptop> | 4. Mailing list management policy. (Chair) |
| 14:44 | * | csm-laptop is skipping the ED reoprt |
| 14:44 | <Julian> | When is #3 going to happen? |
| 14:45 | <csm-laptop> | next meeting I guess... he's busy now |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | Uhh, I strongly object. |
| 14:45 | <csm-laptop> | to what? |
| 14:45 | <MarkK> | yeah |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | ...to deferring #3 to next meeting. |
| 14:45 | <csm-laptop> | freeside? |
| 14:45 | <grumpy> | freeside: if you want to give a report, speak up |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | At least, I'd like to address one or two questions to the ED. |
| 14:45 | * | csm-laptop smacks grumpy for GP |
| 14:46 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: ask... he will answer if he can I guess |
| 14:46 | <grumpy> | GP == "General Principles"? "Good Pactice"? |
| 14:46 | <csm-laptop> | GP |
| 14:47 | <Julian> | freeside: What happened to the HSARPA proposal? You wanted to make it public, didn't you? Can we at least see the final version of the proposal, the one which you submitted? |
| 14:47 | <MarkK> | I would not mind hearing abour the HSARPA progress; but I'm sure it can wait |
| 14:48 | <csm-laptop> | as we are getting no response can we please go on to item #4? |
| 14:48 | <Julian> | What I'd like to see as soon as possible is the version of the proposal that got submitted. |
| 14:48 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 14:48 | <Julian> | Ok, let's go on. |
| 14:48 | <csm-laptop> | someone (/me forgets who) wanted to talk about empowering greg connor |
| 14:48 | <csm-laptop> | it might even have been me |
| 14:48 | <grumpy> | (for what it is worth, I would also like to hear freeside 's answer to Julian's questions) |
| 14:49 | <csm-laptop> | I think what we have, in terms of mailing list management for the project itself is a fait accompli |
| 14:49 | <Julian> | "fait accompli"? |
| 14:49 | <grumpy> | you want a proposal to official annoint gconnor as the spf-discuss listmom? |
| 14:50 | <csm-laptop> | greg is our MLM but I think we should empower him directly with a council approved motion |
| 14:50 | <csm-laptop> | yes |
| 14:50 | <MarkK> | no problems with that; though he is already, de facto, fulfilling the part |
| 14:50 | <csm-laptop> | he does a great job |
| 14:50 | <Julian> | So someone make a motion, please. |
| 14:50 | * | Julian won't. :) |
| 14:50 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: thus I have referred to it as a fait accompli :-) |
| 14:51 | <MarkK> | thus you did :) |
| 14:51 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy: make motion? |
| 14:51 | * | csm-laptop waits... tappity, tappity, tappity |
| 14:51 | <csm-laptop> | :-) |
| 14:52 | <grumpy> | Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss mailing list and to select, with final approval of council, additional moderators |
| 14:52 | <grumpy> | . |
| 14:52 | * | csm-laptop suggests a modification |
| 14:52 | <MarkK> | does that mean Meng is out of it? |
| 14:52 | <csm-laptop> | strike: with final approval of council |
| 14:52 | <Julian> | MarkK: Good point. :) |
| 14:52 | <MarkK> | I though greg was co-list owner |
| 14:52 | <grumpy> | (I think something like this should be done for Scott Kitterman for spf-help) |
| 14:53 | * | csm-laptop trusts gconnor to select moderators without council intervention or oversight |
| 14:53 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: are you saying you don't think the council should have any oversight, or that such wording is unneccessary? |
| 14:53 | <csm-laptop> | the latter |
| 14:54 | <csm-laptop> | if we don't like something we can *ALWAYS* undo it... thus the wording is unnecessary |
| 14:54 | <Julian> | So what's the proposed wording? |
| 14:54 | <MarkK> | lets keep the wording in; it is no PR, and it helps clarify things later |
| 14:54 | <csm-laptop> | Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss mailing list and to select additional moderators |
| 14:54 | <grumpy> | What about something like "the council will be final arbitrator of all disputes and moderator selections" |
| 14:55 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy: unnecessary... we will always be that |
| 14:55 | <Julian> | "all disputes"? Huh? That gotta be at least "all mailing list related disputes" or something... |
| 14:55 | <grumpy> | I think we need to be clear on that point |
| 14:55 | <csm-laptop> | "we" means "this body" |
| 14:55 | <MarkK> | I like to have that addition in; it hurts nothing to have it in, either |
| 14:55 | <grumpy> | Julian: yeah, mailing list disputes. |
| 14:55 | * | csm-laptop removes his objection but hates redundancy |
| 14:55 | <Julian> | Also, what about Meng as mailing list owner/moderator? |
| 14:56 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: Meng owns the resource... the council has no input there |
| 14:56 | <grumpy> | Yeah, let's add Meng in there |
| 14:56 | <Julian> | csm: Redundant resolutions are far, far better than unprecise ones. |
| 14:56 | <grumpy> | Julian: agreed, especially since we are not talking about 50 page documents |
| 14:57 | <csm-laptop> | Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss mailing list and to select, with final approval of council, additional moderators |
| 14:57 | <MarkK> | like I said, this in not a press release where brevity is warranted; for resolutions, we far better err on the side of caution and clarity |
| 14:57 | <csm-laptop> | the chair calls the previous question |
| 14:57 | <csm-laptop> | is there a second? |
| 14:57 | <MarkK> | 15:57 yes |
| 14:57 | <csm-laptop> | 15:57 yes |
| 14:57 | <MarkK> | (sorry; 14:57u: yes) |
| 14:57 | <grumpy> | 15:57 yes |
| 14:57 | <Julian> | Huh? Who has called for votes? |
| 14:58 | <csm-laptop> | <csm-laptop> the chair calls the previous question |
| 14:58 | <csm-laptop> | <csm-laptop> is there a second? |
| 14:58 | <MarkK> | csm |
| 14:58 | <Julian> | Alright, MarkK's second was implicit, I guess. |
| 14:58 | <grumpy> | MarkK: |
| 14:58 | <Julian> | 15:57 abstain |
| 14:58 | <csm-laptop> | no quorom |
| 14:58 | <csm-laptop> | next order of business is: |
| 14:58 | <csm-laptop> | 6. SPF Web. What to do? Domain purchase/hosting? (Chair) |
| 14:59 | <csm-laptop> | there has been, recently, a bit of discussion about the sucky web site |
| 14:59 | <csm-laptop> | do we want to get involved in this or not is my first question |
| 14:59 | <grumpy> | s/site/sites/ |
| 14:59 | <Julian> | (Why isn't there a quorom? We are 4 council members, and a majority voted yes...) |
| 14:59 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: approval requires 4 votes... we decided that on day 1 |
| 15:00 | <Julian> | There were 4 votes. |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | not 4 ayes |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | you abstained |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | so... what about the web site? |
| 15:00 | <Julian> | vote == aye|no? |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | sites |
| 15:00 | <grumpy> | Uh, I thought a quorum was needed to call a meeting to order, not for votes. |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | 4 yes votes would have approved the motion... |
| 15:00 | <csm-laptop> | we did not get 4 |
| 15:01 | <Julian> | No, for votes. But I thought a vote = yes | no | abstain. |
| 15:01 | <MarkK> | I thought we would make Meng's site the official one; but I heard ppl say it had become too commercial, less 'geeky', if I recall the wording properly |
| 15:01 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: though I would like to move on Julian is not going to let us |
| 15:01 | <grumpy> | I agree with Julian about the votes. |
| 15:01 | * | Julian is confused, so we can never make a decision with only 3 yes and 2 no? |
| 15:02 | * | grumpy is also confused and, while he really wants things to move faster, feels that this is an important issue |
| 15:02 | <csm-laptop> | Julian, grumpy: it is the chairs interpretation of http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/3 means that four are required for a meeting and 4 are required for approval of a motion |
| 15:02 | <csm-laptop> | am I wrong |
| 15:02 | <csm-laptop> | ? |
| 15:02 | <Julian> | csm: I think so. |
| 15:02 | <grumpy> | my understanding was 4 required for a meeting, 3 for approval of a vote |
| 15:03 | <grumpy> | s/3/a majority/ |
| 15:03 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: ? |
| 15:03 | <Julian> | I learned that a vote was commonly understood as "yes | no | abstain". I may be wrong, but I don't think so... |
| 15:03 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: I am not questioning what constitutes a vote... only what contistutes a majority |
| 15:03 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: ? |
| 15:03 | <csm-laptop> | what is your opinion? |
| 15:04 | <MarkK> | I understood a quorum to mean 4 out of 5 present and voting |
| 15:04 | <Julian> | csm: A majority is clearly 3. That's even an absolute majority. |
| 15:04 | <grumpy> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum doesn't mention voting, just conducting business |
| 15:04 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: and an approval requires 100% quorom or a simple majority within the quorom? |
| 15:05 | <Julian> | grumpy: The term "quorum" can also be applied to voting. |
| 15:05 | <MarkK> | csm: just a majority, I think; otherwise, with 1 person absent, we could never vote on anything without 100% |
| 15:06 | <Julian> | Otherwise, our quorum of 4 is too high. An absolute majority (3) should be sufficient for any vote. |
| 15:06 | <csm-laptop> | motion: motions may be approved with a simple majority of votes whenever a quorom is present |
| 15:07 | <grumpy> | 1509u seconded |
| 15:07 | <MarkK> | 15:06u: seconded |
| 15:07 | <csm-laptop> | aye |
| 15:07 | <Julian> | 1509u: yes |
| 15:07 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 15:07 | <Julian> | We need another "yes". |
| 15:07 | <grumpy> | we have four |
| 15:08 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:08 | <Julian> | grumpy: So MarkK's was a yes? |
| 15:08 | <grumpy> | oh, MarkK didn't vote, he seconded |
| 15:08 | <csm-laptop> | the chair refers the council to the previous motion wherein he called a "no quorum" |
| 15:08 | <MarkK> | ok, that was a 'yes' then |
| 15:09 | <csm-laptop> | the motion was incorrectly referred to as 1557u |
| 15:09 | <Julian> | (I'll incorporate this resolution into resolution #3. Any objections?) |
| 15:09 | <grumpy> | question: are people who make the motion and second it implicity voting yes? I would say no because people might bring up a motion just to show that we *don't* support something. |
| 15:09 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy yes |
| 15:10 | <Julian> | grumpy: No, this should definitely not be implicit. |
| 15:10 | <Julian> | I'd like to be able to second a proposal, but abstain. |
| 15:10 | <csm-laptop> | motion: 1509u shall be incorporated into resolution #3 as item #3a |
| 15:10 | <Julian> | csm: I don't think we need to vote on that. |
| 15:10 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: yes we do |
| 15:10 | <MarkK> | 15:10u: yes |
| 15:10 | * | grumpy seconds 1510u |
| 15:10 | <Julian> | csm: This is just part of my record keeping. |
| 15:10 | <csm-laptop> | directed minutes are part and parcel of what boards do |
| 15:11 | <csm-laptop> | 1510u: aye |
| 15:11 | <Julian> | I'm not setting up a formal resolution for every vote we do. This would be rediculous. This incorporating is purely editorial. |
| 15:11 | <grumpy> | resolutions/motions should not be modified after the vote. Policies/rules can be. |
| 15:12 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: just call it #3a on the same page... it is not a big deal |
| 15:12 | * | grumpy agrees with csm |
| 15:12 | <Julian> | Come on, laws get consolidated, too... |
| 15:12 | <MarkK> | can we go back to the website thingy now? :) |
| 15:12 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 15:13 | <csm-laptop> | no we can't |
| 15:13 | <csm-laptop> | we have to back up and reconsider 1557u which was incorrectly labeled |
| 15:14 | <csm-laptop> | Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss mailing list and to select, with final approval of council, additional moderators |
| 15:14 | <grumpy> | Julian: right, policies/rules/laws can be changed, votes/motions/minutes shouldn't be |
| 15:14 | <grumpy> | 1514 seconded |
| 15:14 | <Julian> | (grumpy: Resolution #3 is a "rule", nothing else.) |
| 15:15 | <grumpy> | Julian: oh, I thought those were records of votes. |
| 15:15 | <Julian> | grumpy: No. |
| 15:15 | <Julian> | grumpy: Let's talk about that after the meeting, ok? |
| 15:15 | <csm-laptop> | resolution #3 was votes on... that's why it's in the resolutions category |
| 15:16 | <csm-laptop> | it has already been ordered that the new thing is 3a and I really won't stand for any more argument about it... we are nit picking each other to death... |
| 15:16 | <csm-laptop> | Mr. Secretary please just do what you're told here okay? |
| 15:16 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: calm down |
| 15:16 | <csm-laptop> | I am not angry... |
| 15:16 | <csm-laptop> | I am stating fact |
| 15:17 | <csm-laptop> | now lets move on |
| 15:17 | <csm-laptop> | reconsideration of the improperly labeled 1557u is tyhe next item |
| 15:17 | <csm-laptop> | and it is now... uhm... 1514u I believe |
| 15:17 | <MarkK> | 1514u: yes |
| 15:17 | <Julian> | 1514u: abstain |
| 15:17 | <grumpy> | 1514u yes |
| 15:17 | <csm-laptop> | 1514u: yes |
| 15:17 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:18 | <csm-laptop> | 6. SPF Web. What to do? Domain purchase/hosting? (Chair) |
| 15:18 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: you had comments to make here I believe? |
| 15:19 | <MarkK> | Like I said, I heard some disgruntled folks on the list, saying meng's site had become too commercial and less 'geeky', if recall correctly |
| 15:19 | <csm-laptop> | yes... and? |
| 15:19 | <csm-laptop> | your surmise? |
| 15:19 | <MarkK> | earlier, I believe we were going for just making meng's site the official one; so, now I am asking, should we? |
| 15:20 | <grumpy> | I think spf.pobox.com is also out of date and I think that we can't reasonably expect Meng to maintain it and do everything else he does for us |
| 15:20 | <grumpy> | I think it would benefit the SPF project if we could create a team that maintains an official website. |
| 15:20 | <MarkK> | agreed |
| 15:21 | <Julian> | I'd like to comment that http://spf.pobox.com isn't less geeky than it should be, it's just not at all concise. |
| 15:21 | <csm-laptop> | normally I would say that it is the ED's responsibility as this falls under "day-to-day" |
| 15:21 | <MarkK> | julian: I was just reflecting talks I heard; not that I agree per se |
| 15:21 | <csm-laptop> | *BUT* |
| 15:21 | <grumpy> | I think that it is far less easy to find stuff on now than it was under the old format, but the new format looks more "professional" |
| 15:21 | <Julian> | If "commercial" implies "very unconcise", then the world is doomed. |
| 15:21 | <csm-laptop> | perhaps we need to help him with this by getting him some help? |
| 15:22 | <csm-laptop> | hey guys... lets keep to the real point here shall we? |
| 15:22 | <csm-laptop> | we should not concern ourselves with criticism of the site |
| 15:22 | * | grumpy agrees, to a point |
| 15:22 | <Julian> | I don't think the current format of http://spf.pobox.com looks in any way "professional". It just has a lot of "nice" graphics... |
| 15:22 | <csm-laptop> | I think what we should be doing is... acknowledging that the community, and likely this body as well... does not think the sites in general are adequate |
| 15:22 | <MarkK> | we should, if we agree, at large, that we do indeed need a new site |
| 15:23 | <csm-laptop> | so if that's what we think... without devolving into specifics... lets resolve to create a resource to do something about it |
| 15:23 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 15:23 | <Julian> | What about the many outstanding offerings? |
| 15:23 | * | csm-laptop does not know anything about them |
| 15:23 | <Julian> | spf-help.com, openspf.org? (Not just the domains.) |
| 15:24 | <MarkK> | meaning: if we feel the the community 'buzz' is loud enough that the official SPF site should be different, then yes, I yhink we should take that seriously |
| 15:24 | <csm-laptop> | okay so... |
| 15:24 | <csm-laptop> | is anyone on the council interested in pursuing this from a management aspect? |
| 15:24 | * | MarkK would really like to hear Meng's voice on this too |
| 15:25 | * | csm-laptop notes that we are not likely to |
| 15:25 | <grumpy> | Yes, we should ask for help on the spf-discuss list and approve a team of web designers |
| 15:25 | <Julian> | I think it is important that spf.pobox.com ceases to exist if a new "official" web site is created. |
| 15:25 | <csm-laptop> | augh |
| 15:25 | <csm-laptop> | look guys |
| 15:25 | <csm-laptop> | I do not have enough information to know *WHAT* to think |
| 15:25 | <Julian> | ...so we create a committee. ;-) |
| 15:26 | <MarkK> | julian: agreed |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | what we have to do is get someone working on the issue, gathering facts and creating a report or something for our later consideration |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | there is *NO* way we can do this ourselves |
| 15:26 | <Julian> | Agreed. |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | I would prefer that this initial part *NOT* be a group or committee |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | it's simply fact finding |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | now grumpy has a doc to get out |
| 15:26 | <csm-laptop> | Meng is also busy |
| 15:27 | <csm-laptop> | I already have a committee... |
| 15:27 | <Julian> | I would do it, _if_ no one else here is willing. Come on, people. MarkK? |
| 15:27 | <MarkK> | something of a merger between spf.pobox.com, openspf.org and such would be good; prefereably with those folks involved |
| 15:27 | <csm-laptop> | Julian and Mark that leaves the two of you |
| 15:27 | * | grumpy preasures Julian to do it because he likes what Julian has done with the council website |
| 15:27 | <Julian> | grumpy: I think you're mixing things up. This is not about doing the new website myself. |
| 15:27 | <MarkK> | I think we could certainly ask the webmasters in question whether they are willing cooperate in such a fashion? |
| 15:27 | <grumpy> | don't forget spf.infinitepenguins.com |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the Council appoints Julian to gather information on the "state of the web" and propose workable solutions |
| 15:28 | <Julian> | I would be willing to take a part in webmastering the new site, though. |
| 15:28 | <MarkK> | me too |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the Council appoints Julian to gather information on the "state of the web" and propose workable solutions |
| 15:28 | <grumpy> | Julian: true, but I like your taste/style and therefore I would like you to take charge |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the Council appoints Julian to gather information on the "state of the web" and propose workable solutions |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | is there a second? |
| 15:28 | <MarkK> | seconded |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 15:28 | <Julian> | 1528u yes |
| 15:28 | <grumpy> | 1528u yes |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:28 | <MarkK> | 1528u: yes |
| 15:28 | <csm-laptop> | thank you! |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | 7. Create a mission statement? Proposal to create one? (Chair) |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | "The mission of the SPF Council is to Steer the overall SPF |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | standardization effort, promote the deployment of SPF on the global |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | Internet, and to develop and improve SPF's public messaging and |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | communications." |
| 15:29 | <Julian> | What's the scope of the mission statement? |
| 15:29 | <csm-laptop> | modifications? |
| 15:29 | <Julian> | I object to create a mission statement for the council before a mission statement for the SPF project has been created. |
| 15:29 | * | grumpy hates mission statements in general. |
| 15:30 | <grumpy> | julian has a point there... |
| 15:30 | * | MarkK agrees with Julian: we basivcally only need a mission statement for the Spf Community; and then add a line which says: "The SPF Council will lead this effort". |
| 15:30 | <Julian> | MarkK: Agreed. |
| 15:30 | <csm-laptop> | The mission of the SPF Project is to create and maintain an internet standard for the prevention of forged electronic mail." |
| 15:30 | <grumpy> | MarkK: yep |
| 15:31 | <Julian> | csm: A good start, but too general. |
| 15:31 | <Julian> | We shouldn't be creating mission statements on IRC. |
| 15:31 | <grumpy> | agreed |
| 15:31 | <csm-laptop> | okay... |
| 15:31 | <csm-laptop> | 8. Should we have bylaws? Proposal to create them? (Chair) |
| 15:31 | <csm-laptop> | for *THIS* body |
| 15:31 | <Julian> | Motion: Let's create a draft for a mission statement for the SPF project (AKA project charter). |
| 15:32 | <Julian> | ...on the mailing list. |
| 15:32 | <csm-laptop> | which mailing list? |
| 15:32 | * | Julian can't type _that_ quickly. |
| 15:32 | * | grumpy seconds 1531 if thst is ok with the chair |
| 15:32 | <Julian> | council mailing list. |
| 15:32 | <Julian> | Then discuss it on spf-discuss. |
| 15:32 | <grumpy> | ... noting any comments on spf-discuss |
| 15:33 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 15:33 | <csm-laptop> | second: 1331u |
| 15:33 | <csm-laptop> | dammit |
| 15:33 | <csm-laptop> | second: 1531u |
| 15:33 | <Julian> | Votes? |
| 15:33 | <Julian> | 1531u: yes |
| 15:33 | <grumpy> | 1531u yes |
| 15:33 | <MarkK> | 1531u: yes |
| 15:34 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered... Julian... your idea... you start... you may take my draft and twist it as you will... :-) |
| 15:34 | <csm-laptop> | 8. Should we have bylaws? Proposal to create them? (Chair) |
| 15:34 | <csm-laptop> | for *THIS* body |
| 15:35 | <Julian> | Define "bylaws" and explain the difference between bylaws and what resolutions we already have. |
| 15:35 | <Julian> | (#1..8, #12) |
| 15:35 | <csm-laptop> | bylaws are more often used in the formation of a legal entity... we are not yet that... but creation of "official bylaws" leads us down that road |
| 15:35 | * | grumpy isn't overly excited by the idea, but wouldn't have objections to having someone else draw up a set of bylaws and such. |
| 15:36 | <MarkK> | Honestly, I am not too keen on bylaws; we have already voted on ground rules for procedures |
| 15:36 | <csm-laptop> | when you create a corporation for example... you always have to have bylaws... |
| 15:36 | <csm-laptop> | for example... |
| 15:36 | <Julian> | I think it should be the other way round, i.e. we should not create formal bylaws before we decide to create a legal body. |
| 15:36 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: perhaps this is my way of asking that question? ;-) |
| 15:36 | <grumpy> | I think we can have bylaws w/o a legal body |
| 15:36 | <Julian> | csm: I just wanted to express my opinion. :) |
| 15:36 | <csm-laptop> | he-he |
| 15:37 | <MarkK> | I think we should first explore what legal entity we can form even; and then we will know what sort of bylaws we need |
| 15:37 | <Julian> | grumpy: Sure we can, but I think what we currently have is going to suffice. |
| 15:37 | <csm-laptop> | okay... |
| 15:37 | <csm-laptop> | here's a motion |
| 15:37 | <grumpy> | Both William Leibzon and Jonathan Gardner have strongly express views that we should have bylaws, I think we should force them to do the work. ;-) |
| 15:38 | <Julian> | "force"? "let them do the work"... ;-) |
| 15:39 | <Julian> | But I suspect they would just propose adopting RROv10 or something. |
| 15:39 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council shall consider creation of a legal entity. This necessitates the creation of by laws... this consideration will take place between this meeting and the end of January 2005. The chair will undertake to present to the council some options at the first meeting in February 2005. |
| 15:39 | <Julian> | Well, we don't really need a resolution for that, we can just discuss it on the mailing list. |
| 15:40 | <grumpy> | I think the motion is useful |
| 15:40 | <csm-laptop> | the council shall consider creation of a legal entity <---- important and why I make a motion... the rest is details |
| 15:40 | * | grumpy seconds 1539u |
| 15:40 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 15:40 | <MarkK> | 1539u: yes |
| 15:40 | <csm-laptop> | 1539u: yes |
| 15:40 | <Julian> | 1539u: yes |
| 15:40 | <grumpy> | yes, and with the HSARPA proposal, I think the idea of creating a legal entity is important |
| 15:40 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:40 | <grumpy> | 1539u yes |
| 15:41 | <Julian> | grumpy: Too late, the HSARPA proposal refers to pobox.com. |
| 15:41 | <grumpy> | subcontracting |
| 15:41 | <csm-laptop> | 9. New business. (any) |
| 15:41 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 15:41 | <csm-laptop> | speak |
| 15:41 | <Julian> | I ask the chair to wait at least a minute for outstanding votes before commencing. |
| 15:41 | <grumpy> | I would like to have an offical statment from the ocuncil to authorize me to be the author of the SPF I-D |
| 15:42 | <grumpy> | and to coordinate the efforts on the spf-discuss list |
| 15:42 | <Julian> | grumpy: Is that a motion already? |
| 15:42 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council asks Wayne to author the SPF-ID |
| 15:42 | <grumpy> | I don't think that has been a motion yet |
| 15:42 | <MarkK> | turn it into a motion, please :) |
| 15:42 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council asks Wayne to author the SPF-ID |
| 15:42 | * | grumpy seconds 1542u |
| 15:42 | <MarkK> | 1642u: yes |
| 15:43 | <grumpy> | 1542u yes |
| 15:43 | <Julian> | 1542u: yes |
| 15:43 | <MarkK> | err: 1542u: yes |
| 15:43 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:43 | <csm-laptop> | other new business |
| 15:43 | <csm-laptop> | ? |
| 15:43 | * | Julian would like to have the conch, please. |
| 15:43 | <grumpy> | second new business: Do the same thing for Scott Kittermann on spf-help as gconnor |
| 15:43 | <MarkK> | good thinking |
| 15:43 | * | grumpy defers to Julian's proposal |
| 15:44 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council asks Scott Kittermann to listmom spf-help |
| 15:44 | <Julian> | "listmom"? (Yes, I know what the word probably means.) |
| 15:44 | <grumpy> | Erh, Kitterman, not Kittermann |
| 15:44 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: you have my permission to spell it out... |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | I am just trying to move things along quickly |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | second? |
| 15:45 | <grumpy> | 1544u seconded |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 15:45 | <MarkK> | 1544u: yes |
| 15:45 | <Julian> | 1545u: yes |
| 15:45 | <grumpy> | 1544u yes |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | other new business? |
| 15:45 | <Julian> | (Ooops, that's 1544u, of course.) |
| 15:45 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 15:45 | <csm-laptop> | speak |
| 15:46 | <Julian> | I'd like the council to _formally_ change resolution #9 in order to approve of keeping the committee private until 2005-01-31. |
| 15:46 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 15:47 | <Julian> | Any comments? |
| 15:47 | <MarkK> | I still like to get a Positional statement out, in answer to sendmail's positional statement; and we need to vote on wayne's proposal of the spf community position letter, too |
| 15:47 | <grumpy> | MarkK: hang on |
| 15:47 | <grumpy> | Julian: give a motion |
| 15:47 | <csm-laptop> | one at a time |
| 15:48 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: a quick comment about your motion |
| 15:48 | <Julian> | Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's work shall be kept private until 2005-01-31. |
| 15:48 | <Julian> | csm: Yeah? |
| 15:48 | <MarkK> | julian: how will it be private if this channel is posted in public? |
| 15:48 | <csm-laptop> | the committees product will be public... |
| 15:48 | <Julian> | I know. |
| 15:48 | <csm-laptop> | the discussions will likely never be public... |
| 15:49 | <Julian> | Uhm, ok. Why is that? |
| 15:49 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 15:49 | <grumpy> | my understanding is that the discussions after 2005-01-31 would be public |
| 15:49 | <csm-laptop> | as it is most of the committees membership is very concerned about consequences if their discussions become public... it is a very serious thing that is being discussed |
| 15:49 | <Julian> | grumpy: Of course, I doubt anyone would object to that. |
| 15:49 | <grumpy> | and if there is no product by then, the council should approve moretime, if warrented |
| 15:49 | * | Julian doesn't understand the situation completely. |
| 15:50 | <Julian> | Ok, look: |
| 15:51 | <Julian> | I propose that we change res #9 as proposed above, so I can finally request access to the archives with a clear conscience. Then let's have another resolution _later_ about keeping old discussions (up to 2005-01-31) private. |
| 15:51 | <grumpy> | how much later? |
| 15:52 | <csm-laptop> | I suggest a modification |
| 15:52 | <Julian> | grumpy: Next meeting should be enough. |
| 15:52 | <Julian> | I'd have to read up on the archives first. |
| 15:52 | <csm-laptop> | I suggest a modification |
| 15:52 | <csm-laptop> | to the motion |
| 15:52 | <Julian> | csm: Go ahead. |
| 15:52 | <csm-laptop> | motion: rescind resolution #9 |
| 15:53 | <Julian> | Please give very good reasons for that. |
| 15:53 | <grumpy> | and do away with the committee (as far as SPF council is concerned)? |
| 15:54 | <csm-laptop> | this council does not support the committees work without adding untenable restrictions... thus the committee is unable to do anything until this is settled... so... what I propose is the easiest way to get the committee moving |
| 15:54 | <Julian> | Compromise: |
| 15:54 | <Julian> | Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's work shall be kept private. |
| 15:55 | <Julian> | (And let's later resolve that things shall be made public.) |
| 15:55 | <csm-laptop> | modification: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's mailing list archives will be kept private. The product of the committee will be public once complete. |
| 15:55 | <grumpy> | will the committee continue after the product is made? |
| 15:55 | <Julian> | I could live with that. grumpy, MarkK: any comments? |
| 15:56 | <csm-laptop> | not in it's current form... at least I don't see why it would need to |
| 15:56 | <MarkK> | csm: I think I read you saying something to the effect of 'they will become public over my dead body', so I guess you feel strong about it. :) I have no problem with those archieves staying closed. |
| 15:57 | <csm-laptop> | :-) |
| 15:57 | <Julian> | csm: Can we add that 2005-02-01 (or 2005-01-31) date into your last modification somehow? |
| 15:57 | <grumpy> | resolution #9 doesn't give a deadline, I would like to add that if we are going to authorize the mailing list to be private |
| 15:57 | * | grumpy points @ Julian |
| 15:58 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: the committee can work with a production deadline... but we can't have those archives publicized (ever) if we're to be able to speak freely. The eventual product will certainly be public though. |
| 15:58 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: understood |
| 15:58 | <Julian> | Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's mailing list archives shall be kept private. |
| 15:59 | <csm-laptop> | 1558u: second |
| 15:59 | <Julian> | No, stop. |
| 15:59 | * | csm-laptop retracts his second |
| 15:59 | <Julian> | Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's mailing list archives shall be kept private, and that the committee is advised to present their recommendations before 2005-02-01. |
| 16:00 | <csm-laptop> | 1559u: second |
| 16:00 | <grumpy> | looks good to me |
| 16:00 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 16:00 | <grumpy> | 1559u yes |
| 16:00 | <MarkK> | 1559u: yes |
| 16:00 | <Julian> | 1559u: yes |
| 16:00 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 16:00 | <Julian> | Thank you. |
| 16:00 | <grumpy> | other new business? |
| 16:00 | <csm-laptop> | motion: that Wayne present to the Council his draft for SPF by 5 January 2005 |
| 16:01 | <csm-laptop> | muahahahaha |
| 16:01 | <grumpy> | s/5/1/ |
| 16:01 | <csm-laptop> | ah good |
| 16:01 | <grumpy> | we need to get it to the IETF before 5 |
| 16:01 | <MarkK> | like I said, I still like to get a Positional statement out, in answer to sendmail's positional statement; and we need to vote on wayne's proposal of the spf community position letter, too |
| 16:01 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: consider the current motion... it's something we overlooked |
| 16:01 | <grumpy> | motion: that Wayne present to the Council his draft for SPF by 1 January 2005 |
| 16:01 | <csm-laptop> | second? |
| 16:02 | <MarkK> | seconded |
| 16:02 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 16:02 | <grumpy> | which one? |
| 16:02 | <csm-laptop> | 1601u |
| 16:02 | <grumpy> | 1601u yes |
| 16:02 | <Julian> | Uh, wait a second. |
| 16:02 | <MarkK> | 1601u: yes |
| 16:02 | * | grumpy waits |
| 16:02 | * | Julian just sent off a mail and needs to read up. |
| 16:03 | <Julian> | Ah, ok. |
| 16:03 | <Julian> | 1601u: yes |
| 16:03 | <csm-laptop> | so oredered |
| 16:03 | <csm-laptop> | okay |
| 16:03 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: make your motions |
| 16:04 | <csm-laptop> | alright I will do it |
| 16:04 | <MarkK> | motion: the spf council will decide on a positional statement; either endorse the Spf Community Position, as proposed by wayne, or a new one, such as I had in mind |
| 16:05 | <MarkK> | we never really decided on that issue |
| 16:05 | <csm-laptop> | motion: that the council shall draft a position statement followed by a PR on the sendmail position statment and the council requests that MarkK provide an initial draft to the council by 29 December 2005 |
| 16:05 | <Julian> | What's the scope of an "SPF Community Position"? Sender-ID? PRA? The Sendmail paper? |
| 16:05 | <grumpy> | MarkK: agreed, although I would like something that says "SPF is not SenderID and SenderID is not SPF" |
| 16:05 | <MarkK> | wait |
| 16:06 | <grumpy> | Julian: the "SPF Community Position" is the thing on openspf.org, IIUC |
| 16:06 | <csm-laptop> | guys... my motion is specific to the sendmail piece and requests that MarkK provide us a draft |
| 16:06 | <Julian> | grumpy: I know. |
| 16:06 | <MarkK> | the positional lettter I had in mind was rather global, and held positions on recommendations for senders, receivers, mid-points, etc. |
| 16:06 | <Julian> | Do we need an official position statement on the Sendmail paper? |
| 16:06 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: MarkK thinks we do and so do some other people |
| 16:07 | <Julian> | Ok, maybe I have to read up on that issue. |
| 16:07 | <MarkK> | do you want something all-inclusive like that? (I posted a draft on spf-discuss) |
| 16:07 | <Julian> | MarkK: When exactly did you post it? Subject? |
| 16:07 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: I would be fine with either *BUT* the council needs to be clear about what it wants... that's why your motion and mine are different |
| 16:07 | <MarkK> | I think it would not hurt to give out our vision of recommendation path for implementors |
| 16:08 | <csm-laptop> | can I restate then? |
| 16:08 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I think that would be useful, but I still want something that gives a bright-line distinction between SenderID and SPF |
| 16:08 | <Julian> | MarkK: True. Maybe we can just approve Meng's paper? |
| 16:08 | <Julian> | grumpy: Agreed. |
| 16:08 | <csm-laptop> | can I restate then? |
| 16:08 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 16:08 | <grumpy> | William made some comments on Meng's whitepaper, some of which I very much agree with. |
| 16:08 | <Julian> | I think it would be good to give an official statement of the SPF project on the Sender-ID/PRA/SFPv1 issue. |
| 16:08 | * | csm-laptop smacks grumpy with the conch :-) |
| 16:09 | * | csm-laptop smacks Julian with the conch :-) |
| 16:09 | * | Julian ducks. |
| 16:09 | <csm-laptop> | okay so we need to work this a bit more |
| 16:09 | * | grumpy notes that IRC doesn't have as many problems with multiple people typing as physical meetings have with multiple people talking. |
| 16:09 | <Julian> | I think we need to have three different "statements": 1. SPFv1 vs. Sender-ID/PRA, 2. Sendmail paper, 3. SPF project's own vision (maybe Meng's paper?) |
| 16:10 | <MarkK> | I will glady draft anything, but the scope of that draft is not entirely clear yet |
| 16:10 | * | grumpy agrees with Julian |
| 16:10 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council desires to express the SPF Community position on various issues which have remained unclarified up to now. The council requests that MarkK provide a draft of his proposed position paper by 29 December 2004 |
| 16:10 | <grumpy> | and I think 1) should/can/must be very short |
| 16:10 | <Julian> | No, let's not have a unified statement for all things. |
| 16:10 | * | csm-laptop smacks Julian with the conch :-) |
| 16:11 | <Julian> | Yes, smack me, bitch! |
| 16:11 | <grumpy> | heh |
| 16:11 | <csm-laptop> | he-he |
| 16:11 | <csm-laptop> | look at the motion please... |
| 16:11 | <Julian> | I can't support that one. |
| 16:11 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK is being asked to provide a draft... we don't need to tell him what to put in it |
| 16:11 | <Julian> | I don't want to have a unified draft/statement. |
| 16:11 | <grumpy> | I think we need to have 3 motions/drafts |
| 16:11 | <csm-laptop> | once his draft is prepared we can accept it, suggest mods or disapprove |
| 16:12 | <MarkK> | yes, please do. :) Tell me the scope of the draft |
| 16:12 | <csm-laptop> | but I am not going to write the document in IRC or spend any time debating it |
| 16:12 | <grumpy> | agreed |
| 16:12 | <Julian> | MarkK: _You_ tell us. What do you want to draft a statement on? |
| 16:13 | <csm-laptop> | augh |
| 16:13 | <MarkK> | Like I said: the SPF community's deployment reccomendations for senders, receivers and mid-points |
| 16:13 | <csm-laptop> | why can he not present us with his draft and then we will know? |
| 16:13 | <Julian> | Ok. What's the problem with just approving Meng's whitepaper? |
| 16:13 | <grumpy> | Ok, I could live with that *as one of three* proposals. |
| 16:13 | * | Julian too. |
| 16:13 | <csm-laptop> | why in the hell do we have to be that specific today when we are 2 hours and 14 fscking minutes into this verdammt meeting! |
| 16:13 | <Julian> | No, we only started at ~15:15 UTC. |
| 16:13 | <csm-laptop> | let him tell us by writing it! |
| 16:14 | * | grumpy smacks julian for being pedantic |
| 16:14 | <Julian> | Sure, Mark, go ahead. |
| 16:14 | <MarkK> | I think julian meat not for me to spell the whole thing out, just for me to define my scope |
| 16:14 | <csm-laptop> | motion: the council desires to express the SPF Community position on various issues which have remained unclarified up to now. The council requests that MarkK provide a draft of his proposed position paper(s) by 29 December 2004 |
| 16:15 | <Julian> | We don't need a resolution for that, do we? |
| 16:15 | * | Julian really |