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/2004/12/29_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| csm | Chuck Mead |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Wed Dec 29 13:29:02 UTC 2004 --- | ||
| 13:29 | <grumpy> | the council meeting starts in 30 minutes, right? |
| 13:51 | <Julian> | Think so. |
| 13:55 | <Julian> | hi MarkK |
| 13:56 | * | grumpy teaches MarkK the secret handshake |
| 13:56 | <MarkK> | good afternoon |
| 13:57 | <Julian> | Why hasn't {0pm3} op'ed you? |
| 13:57 | <grumpy> | "wrong" IP address |
| 13:57 | <MarkK> | because I am at my parents' place |
| 13:57 | <Julian> | Oh, I see. |
| 13:58 | <grumpy> | csm: you around? |
| 13:58 | <Julian> | I think today's meeting is going to be shorter than "usual". ;-) |
| 13:59 | <grumpy> | Well, the meeting *is* on Meng's calendar |
| 14:00 | <MarkK> | julian: why? |
| 14:00 | <Julian> | MarkK: Well, look at today's agenda. It's shorter than usual, and the items are less controversial, I think. |
| 14:00 | <MarkK> | yeah, that is true |
| 14:02 | <grumpy> | So, should we have a meeting next saturday? |
| 14:02 | <csm> | hello |
| 14:02 | <grumpy> | Yeah! |
| 14:03 | <csm> | I see we have quorom |
| 14:04 | <Julian> | grumpy: I think another meeting before 2005-01-08 would be good, but on 01-01, I don't have time in the evening. |
| 14:04 | <Julian> | (If we meet often, we can keep the meetings shorter.) |
| 14:05 | <grumpy> | does anyone know what timezone meng is in? |
| 14:05 | <csm> | nope |
| 14:05 | <csm> | shall we get started? |
| 14:05 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 14:05 | <grumpy> | sure |
| 14:05 | <csm> | good |
| 14:05 | <csm> | meeting will come to order |
| 14:06 | <csm> | The first item is the minutes... Julian? |
| 14:06 | <Julian> | Alright. |
| 14:06 | <Julian> | I guess you already saw the last meeting's minutes. If you haven't: http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2004-12-22 |
| 14:07 | <Julian> | Please approve the minutes. |
| 14:07 | <grumpy> | I second that motion |
| 14:07 | <grumpy> | (I have read the minutes and approve of them) |
| 14:07 | <grumpy> | one suggestion: put "minutes" into the subject line of your posts |
| 14:07 | <Julian> | grumpy: Hmm, ok. |
| 14:08 | <MarkK> | I approve of the minutes too |
| 14:08 | * | grumpy notes that he broke the published link to the IRC logs |
| 14:08 | <csm> | votes? |
| 14:08 | <Julian> | grumpy: You could have changed the wiki page right away. :) |
| 14:08 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 14:09 | <Julian> | grumpy: What's the new link? |
| 14:09 | <grumpy> | Oh, just the anchor |
| 14:09 | <csm> | 1407U: yes |
| 14:09 | <grumpy> | Erh, that should be: |
| 14:09 | <grumpy> | 1407u: yes |
| 14:09 | <Julian> | grumpy: The anchor works. |
| 14:09 | <Julian> | 1407u: yes |
| 14:09 | <MarkK> | 1407u: yes |
| 14:09 | <csm> | so ordered |
| 14:09 | <csm> | the next item is the chairman's report |
| 14:09 | <csm> | the chair has two items of interest |
| 14:09 | <grumpy> | (the anchor is broking in the spf-council mailing list archive) |
| 14:10 | <Julian> | grumpy: Oh, that one. |
| 14:10 | <Julian> | (Can't fix that one easily.) |
| 14:10 | <csm> | 1. the press release, though complete, has still not been pushed to the public... |
| 14:10 | <csm> | 2. the spf-council archives are public once again |
| 14:10 | <Julian> | csm: 1. Do you mean you have waited for me to publish the PR on spf-discuss? |
| 14:10 | <Julian> | csm: 2. Great, thank you very much! |
| 14:11 | <csm> | Julian: no... I mean it has not been published "elsewhere" like PR NEwswire |
| 14:11 | <csm> | I will try again next week... |
| 14:11 | <Julian> | csm: Hm, ok. Shall I go ahead and announce it on spf-discuss (and possibly on spf-announce)? |
| 14:11 | <csm> | with everyone on holiday I have not been able to get any cooperation at RH |
| 14:11 | <csm> | go ahead |
| 14:11 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 14:12 | <csm> | and that's for everybody... make some noise |
| 14:12 | <Julian> | Heh. |
| 14:12 | <Julian> | Will do. |
| 14:12 | <grumpy> | once it gets in PR newswire, we might want to try submitting a link to /. |
| 14:12 | <csm> | the next item is the ED report... since the ED is not here we aren't going to get one.... |
| 14:13 | <csm> | which brings us to item #4 which I believe has been satisfied overnight |
| 14:13 | <Julian> | Let's defer it until the meeting's end, perhaps freeside still shows up. |
| 14:13 | <csm> | Julian: okay |
| 14:13 | <Julian> | Re #4, yes I agree. |
| 14:13 | <csm> | okay... so item #5... Wayne? |
| 14:13 | <Julian> | "Make a press release regarding the impending submission of the SPF draft to the IETF?" |
| 14:14 | <grumpy> | Well, the new draft *still* hasn't shown up on the IETF website |
| 14:14 | <MarkK> | odd |
| 14:14 | <Julian> | (grumpy: I'm still working on some input for the draft's next iteration.) |
| 14:14 | <grumpy> | I think we should wait for at least a few days after the PR about the council election hits before we create a PR for the I-D |
| 14:14 | <csm> | I hope it doesn't actually... but that's simply my view of how things are going to go spoken out loud |
| 14:15 | <grumpy> | csm: you hope what doesn't? |
| 14:15 | <Julian> | However, we could start drafting the PR regarding the draft's impending IETFication. |
| 14:15 | <grumpy> | yes... |
| 14:15 | <csm> | that they do not accept/publish the new draft... frankly I don't think they will and hope they do not |
| 14:15 | <Julian> | csm: LOL :) |
| 14:15 | <grumpy> | csm: submissions of I-D's happen all the time and are normally rubber stamped |
| 14:16 | <csm> | yes I know... is it not peculiar that yours has not been? |
| 14:16 | <grumpy> | all you need to do to get an I-D published is for it to be in the right format |
| 14:16 | <csm> | it could be the holidays... but I suspect it's something deeper |
| 14:16 | <Julian> | Well, it's 12-29, you know? :) |
| 14:16 | <grumpy> | csm: I suspect the holidays |
| 14:16 | <MarkK> | csm: that is why I thought it was odd |
| 14:16 | <csm> | well we shall see... we play by the only rules we have... |
| 14:16 | <Julian> | Let's wait some more days before drawing conclusions... |
| 14:17 | <grumpy> | *possibly* it is because I submitted it with a filename of draft-schlitt-spf-02 rather than -00 |
| 14:17 | <csm> | in any event a PR should be prepared announcing the new draft and it's submission |
| 14:17 | <Julian> | grumpy: But if _that_ is the cause, their system should give you some feedback (AKA error message). |
| 14:17 | <grumpy> | csm: is that something you can do? |
| 14:18 | <grumpy> | Julian: agreed, in theory. so far, all I've gotten is an ack from the IETF bot saying it was received. |
| 14:18 | <csm> | grumpy: parts of these things are formulaic... I would gladly do so if you would do some text at the top... |
| 14:18 | <Julian> | For the PR, we could use that list of changes since ... that grumpy promised to compile. |
| 14:19 | <Julian> | Not that I'd like to include that list in the PR, but perhaps there's one or two important changes we'd like to mention. Don't know... |
| 14:19 | <grumpy> | Well, actually, I was thinking of taking the PR that MS used to announce their I-D for SenderID and lightly change it |
| 14:19 | <Julian> | LOL |
| 14:19 | <grumpy> | as much as a poke at MS as anything. |
| 14:19 | <csm> | grumpy: use our format please |
| 14:19 | <grumpy> | Ok |
| 14:20 | <Julian> | grumpy: Which MS PR is that? Do you have an URL? |
| 14:20 | <csm> | but just add maybe 3 highlights about what's changed and a link to the canonical resting place for more info |
| 14:20 | <grumpy> | Seriously, I don't think there needs to be any details that we all don't know. This is a PR, not a tech doc. |
| 14:20 | <grumpy> | I would prefer to spend my time on updating the draft than creating the PR |
| 14:21 | <csm> | I do not want you to create the PR |
| 14:21 | <csm> | I will do that |
| 14:21 | <grumpy> | Julian: no, I don't have a URL, but I'm sure a search of prnewswire will find it |
| 14:21 | <csm> | but I need you to help me with some text for the non-formulaic section |
| 14:21 | <grumpy> | csm: ok, please let me know (off channel) exactly what you are looking for, maybe send a fill-in-the-blanks copy |
| 14:22 | <Julian> | csm: Make a draft template, so we see what things have to be filled in. |
| 14:22 | * | grumpy points @ Julian |
| 14:22 | * | grumpy notes his 5 minutes is up |
| 14:22 | <csm> | Julian: we have a draft template... what we need is some text for the sections above the start of the "About" sections |
| 14:23 | <Julian> | grumpy: The duration numbers are only a guideline, not strict rules. |
| 14:23 | <Julian> | csm: Oh... |
| 14:23 | * | csm chuckles at grumpy |
| 14:23 | <csm> | the "About" sections do not change... they will be the same every time |
| 14:24 | <Julian> | As I said, a list of changes cf. 200406 would be good. |
| 14:24 | <grumpy> | Julian: that would be too long for a PR |
| 14:24 | <grumpy> | besides, I don't think that is what should go into a PR |
| 14:24 | <Julian> | grumpy: I don't want to include that list in the PR... (but I'm repeating myself) |
| 14:24 | <csm> | yes... if I could get the three most important changes in abbreviated form... like a changelog maybe... and the link to the canonical URL for the document that would do |
| 14:25 | <Julian> | grumpy: Perhaps not a single change needs to be mentioned in the PR, but I can't decide that right now. |
| 14:25 | <grumpy> | it should be more a announcement about how a popular SPF is and how this is just shiney new spec with no real changes |
| 14:25 | <grumpy> | anyway, I need to create that list of diffs and do a bunch of other edititng and such. |
| 14:26 | <csm> | okay... well here are some instructions then |
| 14:26 | <csm> | when you do your diff... send me the list of what you believe to be the 3 most important changes... and the canonical URL for the document... I will work it from there |
| 14:27 | <grumpy> | csm: ok |
| 14:27 | <csm> | thank you |
| 14:27 | <grumpy> | thanks |
| 14:27 | <Julian> | Something in the style of the following might be included in the PR: "Through the latest draft, the SPF project has reaffirmed its will to sanction the conduction of HELO tests"... |
| 14:27 | <csm> | does anybody feel this is something that needs to be passed as a resolution? |
| 14:27 | <Julian> | (or whatever. depending on the complete list of important changes.) |
| 14:27 | <grumpy> | (csm: not I) |
| 14:27 | <csm> | Julian: those are details not germaine to this dicussion |
| 14:28 | <MarkK> | not really |
| 14:28 | <Julian> | csm: I just wanted to give an example for why the list of changes might be good to have when writing the PR. |
| 14:28 | <Julian> | It may not be a good example. |
| 14:28 | <csm> | alright... grumpy will send me stuff... I will do an initial draft... Julian and I will hash it out from there... final version to the council list before mid-week next week |
| 14:29 | <csm> | okay... this brings us to item #6 |
| 14:29 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 14:29 | <csm> | Julian..? |
| 14:31 | <Julian> | As I have stated repeatedly, during meetings and on the council mailing list, I'd like to create an official long-term agenda for the SPF project, so community members would feel more inclined to do things that are "commonly agreed on by the community", i.e. that are sanctioned in one way or another. |
| 14:31 | <Julian> | No one has really responded to that suggestion yet. |
| 14:31 | <grumpy> | I think it is an obviously good idea, hence didn't think I needed to respond. |
| 14:31 | <grumpy> | sorry |
| 14:32 | <csm> | nor did I but seeing this now I *DO* have a comment |
| 14:32 | <csm> | this seems something which should, more correctly, reside on the shiny new "official SPF web site" you are supposed to dream up! |
| 14:32 | <csm> | :-) |
| 14:32 | <Julian> | Probably, yes. |
| 14:33 | <Julian> | Some other things need to be fleshed out, though, before we can resolve on it. |
| 14:33 | <Julian> | Such as, how do items get on and off that project agenda. |
| 14:33 | <csm> | okay... so write up your email and let us scratch and sniff on it for a while |
| 14:33 | <grumpy> | since it is "council authorized" I think it could go on the council wiki... |
| 14:34 | <grumpy> | (until such time as we have an official website) |
| 14:34 | * | csm does not object |
| 14:34 | <grumpy> | MarkK: comments? |
| 14:34 | <Julian> | Ok. I had already written a very rough proposal to the council list on 2004-12-19, but wanted to wait for comments before pursuing the idea. |
| 14:35 | <csm> | not bad... though the NY Times stuff is a bit much don't you think? |
| 14:35 | <csm> | :-) |
| 14:36 | <Julian> | (The subject was "SPF Project Agenda".) So I will flesh out the proposal and send it to the list. |
| 14:36 | <csm> | okay |
| 14:36 | <Julian> | csm: Sure, it was just a joke. Mostly. ;-) |
| 14:36 | <csm> | I see no need for a vote on this item either... it's Sec. business... :-) |
| 14:36 | <MarkK> | On what Julian suggested? Feels reasonable. |
| 14:36 | <Julian> | Good to hear. |
| 14:37 | <Julian> | csm: ACK, nothing to vote on. |
| 14:37 | <csm> | though I would like to see this show up on the "official SPF web site" |
| 14:37 | <Julian> | csm: As soon as we have one. |
| 14:37 | <Julian> | One last comment: |
| 14:37 | <grumpy> | speaking of such things, has anyone talked with William and Jonathan about creating by-laws? |
| 14:37 | <grumpy> | or informed Greg/Scott about their "official" moderator status? |
| 14:38 | <csm> | not I |
| 14:38 | <csm> | though I suppose either I or Julian should |
| 14:38 | <Julian> | Currently, I see the problem that the council decides which things have to be done, and the only one (mostly) who does these things is the council. We really need sort of an invitation to the community to take part in the efforts. |
| 14:38 | <csm> | maybe Julian since he is the Secretary... and thus the offical bearer of news |
| 14:39 | <Julian> | Uhm, I haven't notified Greg and Scott explicitly. I thought the resolutions practically were affirmations of the status quo, and they should have received the meeting minutes. Shall I notify them out-of-band? |
| 14:40 | <grumpy> | Julian: I think so |
| 14:40 | * | Julian adds an item on his SPF TODO list. |
| 14:40 | <grumpy> | and I'm not sure that Scott is actually has moderator status |
| 14:40 | <grumpy> | Julian: is that list getting too long? |
| 14:40 | <csm> | yes I think you should... I also think that since they are serving in an official capacity now that something should appear on a web site somewhere that says it "officially" |
| 14:41 | <Julian> | grumpy: Just not yet. :) |
| 14:41 | <csm> | alright... next item is #7 |
| 14:41 | <grumpy> | Julian: ok. I just don't want to burn you out. |
| 14:41 | <grumpy> | re: #7 I think the archive should be public |
| 14:41 | * | csm thinks of Julian like a "towering inferno" of work! :-) |
| 14:42 | <Julian> | csm: Re should appear on a web site: Is http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/13 sufficient? |
| 14:42 | * | csm has a question about the archives in question |
| 14:42 | <csm> | Julian: perhaps in the names list on the right... "Official" positions or something? |
| 14:43 | <csm> | so who owns the spf-help archive as a resource? |
| 14:43 | <grumpy> | I think Meng does |
| 14:43 | <csm> | IOW... who has root... who owns the hardware? |
| 14:43 | <grumpy> | meng |
| 14:43 | <Julian> | csm: Pardon? I don't fully understand what you mean. |
| 14:43 | <Julian> | You mean I should mention the resource owner, too? |
| 14:43 | <MarkK> | meng, I am pretty sure |
| 14:43 | <csm> | Julian: you list the council members... |
| 14:43 | <csm> | list the list mom's too |
| 14:44 | <csm> | okay well if Meng owns it then Meng decides whether the list archives are public or not |
| 14:44 | <Julian> | Hmm, that sort of belongs on a community version of <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Information_Resources> (on the new project web site), I think. |
| 14:44 | <csm> | the council can state a preference but cannot over ride the interests of the resource owner |
| 14:44 | <csm> | Julian: as you see fit |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | csm: True. |
| 14:45 | <csm> | okay so on this archives thingy... perhaps we pass a resolution stating our preference? |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | csm: So, shall I include the resource owners on http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/13 (for now)? |
| 14:45 | <csm> | Julian: as you see fit |
| 14:45 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 14:46 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 14:46 | <Julian> | Re spf-help archives: It would be good to hear Meng's reasons for having kept them private so far. |
| 14:46 | <csm> | somebody want to make a motion? |
| 14:47 | <grumpy> | Julian: agreed, although I suspect it is just an oversight |
| 14:47 | <Julian> | grumpy: Probably. |
| 14:47 | <grumpy> | motion: the spf-help archive should be made public |
| 14:47 | <csm> | second? |
| 14:47 | * | Julian seconds 1447u. |
| 14:48 | <csm> | votes? |
| 14:48 | <MarkK> | 1447u: yes |
| 14:48 | <Julian> | 1557u; yes |
| 14:48 | <grumpy> | 1447u: yes |
| 14:48 | <Julian> | 1447u: yes, that is. |
| 14:48 | <csm> | so ordered... Julian please make sure Meng is notified |
| 14:48 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 14:48 | <MarkK> | speaking of 'public', did all y'all receive my position draft, btw? (we hadn't really put in on the agenda, but I supposed to have submitted it before today) |
| 14:48 | <csm> | next item is #8 |
| 14:48 | <csm> | #8 has been dealt with already |
| 14:48 | <grumpy> | csm: thank you |
| 14:49 | <Julian> | csm: Agreed. Thank you again. |
| 14:49 | <csm> | no problem... it was a technical problem and I received the solution last night and executed immediately |
| 14:49 | <MarkK> | csm: excellent |
| 14:49 | <csm> | farting around in mailman archives has always caused bad things to happen in the past |
| 14:49 | <Julian> | MarkK: I received it, but -- shame on me -- haven't read it yet. |
| 14:50 | <csm> | glad to know how to do it |
| 14:50 | <csm> | MarkK: I read it and have a suggestion |
| 14:50 | * | Julian tries to read it in the background now. |
| 14:50 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I also have not done more than skim it, nor have I created my promised "brightline distinction between SPF and SenderID". I've been too busy with the spf draft. |
| 14:51 | <csm> | MarkK: do your paragraph 4a. as a stand alone document and do it now... |
| 14:52 | <Julian> | MarkK: I do have a question: "In the case where Senders expect "v=spf1" records to be interpreted by Receivers as applying to either the MAIL FROM or elements of the message header, the Sender may choose to publish a separate, void "spf2.0/pra" record." |
| 14:52 | <grumpy> | yes, that would be the "brightline distinction" thing. |
| 14:52 | <MarkK> | julian: what is the question? |
| 14:53 | <Julian> | MarkK: That seems to imply that an additional, void spf2 record means that the existing spf1 record should be used for both MAIL FROM and PRA checking. That is technically wrong. |
| 14:53 | <Julian> | Am I confused? |
| 14:53 | * | csm notes that MarkK prefers Julian's comment to his! :-) |
| 14:53 | <MarkK> | Hmm,I mean it to say: so that just the v=spf1 record will be used on MAIL FROM. |
| 14:54 | <Julian> | MarkK: Ok, then consider my comment a bug report. :) |
| 14:54 | <MarkK> | I will reword that to make it more clear |
| 14:54 | <csm> | MarkK: any comment on mysuggestion? |
| 14:55 | <MarkK> | csm: is 4a not a bit short for a positional paper? it is just 1 paragraph |
| 14:55 | <Julian> | I also think we need a stand-alone "SPFv1 vs. Sender-ID" position statement. |
| 14:55 | <csm> | ah yes... but it could easily be expanded |
| 14:55 | <csm> | you know what I would really like? |
| 14:55 | <MarkK> | sure |
| 14:55 | <MarkK> | tell me |
| 14:56 | <csm> | someone draft a statement like that and then let me hammer on it |
| 14:56 | <Julian> | Ok, so we're talking about a "SPFv1 vs. Sender-ID"-scoped position statement now. Let me make a suggestion: |
| 14:56 | <Julian> | I think this is a very controversial issue among the community, perhaps even within the council. |
| 14:57 | <grumpy> | MarkK: comment: I think you should make it clear that it is the SenderID folks that are requiring people to opt-out rather than opt-in. And the SPF folks don't have control over that. |
| 14:57 | <MarkK> | The point I wish to make here, though, is not the detail of the wording, but that we, the council, have global concensus on our technical vision for deployment recommendations; the details we can hammer out on the mailing list |
| 14:57 | <MarkK> | grumpy: good point |
| 14:58 | <csm> | MarkK: do you think you could expand what you have there to 3 paragraphs? |
| 14:58 | <csm> | even 4? |
| 14:58 | <MarkK> | 4a, you mean? |
| 14:58 | <csm> | yes |
| 14:58 | <MarkK> | sure I could |
| 14:58 | <grumpy> | I'm not sure that it needs to be much longer than that. |
| 14:59 | <csm> | if you would do that I would gladly turn it into a full blown paper |
| 14:59 | <grumpy> | one of the complaints on the SPF-discuss list is that we shouldn't be reviewing other technologies |
| 14:59 | <csm> | and I would solicit comments from the $names in the space as well... eg. grumpy, meng etc. |
| 14:59 | <Julian> | We should distill the basic vector's of argumentation that various parties within the SPF project wish to make clear, and create several alternative position statement drafts. Then let the community vote on those. (That's the same thing as what I think would have to be done for the project charter.) |
| 14:59 | <grumpy> | we just need to clear up the confusion on SenderID vs SPF |
| 14:59 | <csm> | grumpy: this is not a review... it's competetive and political |
| 15:00 | <Julian> | s/vector's/vectors/; # Oh no. |
| 15:00 | <grumpy> | csm: I happen to agree with you, but others on spf-discuss don't... |
| 15:00 | <MarkK> | csm: I see nothing political or competitive in my draft at all. :) |
| 15:01 | <csm> | Julian: uhm... we elected a council because we had no benevolent dictator... the council is supposed to execute the SPf comm's visiion... now we have to have a public vote even though we have our benevolent dictator in the form of the council? |
| 15:01 | <Julian> | MarkK: You might not see it, but it is there because Microsoft has declared it interprets things differently than you (or we) do. Thus it's competitive and political. |
| 15:02 | <grumpy> | csm: I think the spf community would appreciate and expect to vote on this. |
| 15:02 | <csm> | ~sigh... |
| 15:02 | <grumpy> | s/would/probably would/ |
| 15:02 | <csm> | fine |
| 15:02 | <MarkK> | I think there is nothing wrong to state how we would like ppl to interpret spf records; I never mention MS |
| 15:02 | <csm> | I don;t really care I just think we waste a lot of time to get to the same place we'd be going anyway |
| 15:02 | <Julian> | csm: Things such as a project charter and the "SPFv1 vs. Sender-ID" issue are very fundamental. Ignoring parts of the community (which will be the case if the council decides on its own) is going to split the community. |
| 15:02 | <grumpy> | again, I agree with you, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate |
| 15:03 | <csm> | MarkK: I don;t want you to speak about Microsoft in your part of this... just keep it to the tech please |
| 15:03 | <Julian> | grumpy: _Who_ do you agree with? |
| 15:04 | <MarkK> | csm: nowhere do I speak about MS already :) |
| 15:04 | <grumpy> | Julian: me. ;-) |
| 15:04 | <Julian> | MarkK: That's absolutely ok. :) |
| 15:04 | <csm> | MarkK: so can you give me 3 or 4 paragraphs? |
| 15:04 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 15:04 | <csm> | okay... when can I expect to have them? |
| 15:04 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I like your one paragraph thing |
| 15:05 | <Julian> | If we can get a voting system up and running for the community to vote on alternative proposals, then that would definitely be a good things and future votes of that kind would be easy and not time-consuming. |
| 15:05 | <MarkK> | csm: although I would like to point out that it is primrily so short because I do not go into the comprtion, and how bad they are, etc. |
| 15:06 | <csm> | MarkK: 3 or 4 paragraphs of tech talk... explaining the differences from a technical perspective |
| 15:06 | <MarkK> | It is just a 'sec' statement clarifying matters |
| 15:06 | <csm> | yes I know |
| 15:06 | <Julian> | Pardon, what's a "sec" statement? |
| 15:06 | <csm> | I just need more tech to go into the overall document |
| 15:06 | <MarkK> | 'sec', as in the French 'dry' (to the point) |
| 15:07 | <Julian> | Ah, ok. |
| 15:07 | <MarkK> | csm: especially the existing SPF community position letter I thought was too political in tone |
| 15:08 | <MarkK> | that is why I wanted things toned down |
| 15:08 | <Julian> | Some people in the community _want_ it to be political. |
| 15:08 | <Julian> | (Not that I wanted it that way...) |
| 15:08 | <csm> | MarkK: I understand your position... no offense but sometimes I wonder if everyone understands the nature of the war we're involved in? |
| 15:08 | <MarkK> | I understand that sentiment; but professionally, I think we'd soon look pretty childish doing so |
| 15:09 | <MarkK> | csm: you _want_ it more political? |
| 15:10 | <csm> | well it ain't gonna be a childish statement... I have already written volumes about the actions of certain parties involved in this conflict... I simply intend to point out *WHY* we are now in the situation we are in... by stating *FACT* that may be political but it's *NOT* propaganda! |
| 15:10 | <MarkK> | To give an example, if we say: But Microsoft stole pur SPF records!", we will look like a sore loser, regardless of the fact that it is true. |
| 15:10 | <Julian> | csm: You might want to write a short essay for spf-discuss on the topic. |
| 15:11 | <csm> | do I intend to make them look bad? yes... but not with my words... I intend to do it with their own actions |
| 15:11 | <Julian> | MarkK: No, we can firmly state that Microsoft says "blah blah", and that we consider this wrong for the following reasons: "blah blah". |
| 15:11 | <Julian> | That doesn't have to come over as childish. |
| 15:11 | <csm> | anyway... MarkK if you could give me 3 or four para's of tech that would be enough to get me started |
| 15:12 | <grumpy> | Julian: especially if we can footnote where MS says such things, so people know we aren't taking things out of context or making stuff up. |
| 15:12 | <Julian> | grumpy: Right. |
| 15:13 | <csm> | the nice thing is that I have already written most of this... the history has already been recorded so I will not have to work that hard to get this done! :-) |
| 15:13 | <MarkK> | Also, are we ready to break with MS? Meng still seems to have ties with them (or, I should say, has not fully loosened those; so I am not sure what he wants) |
| 15:13 | <grumpy> | MarkK: true... |
| 15:13 | <csm> | we don't get to decide that |
| 15:13 | <csm> | they already broke faith with us |
| 15:14 | <Julian> | MarkK: We are the SPF Council. We can make decisions for the SPF Project. |
| 15:14 | <grumpy> | I think freeside, gconnor, PHB, etc, think that such a break would be bad. |
| 15:14 | <csm> | we will simply be executing their obvious preference |
| 15:14 | <MarkK> | csm: true; if if we make it political, we must be prepared to live without them, for ever. |
| 15:14 | <csm> | MarkK: we already live without them |
| 15:14 | <Julian> | MarkK: Microsoft isn't going to live "with" us. They use us as long as it is convenient for them. |
| 15:14 | <grumpy> | csm: not entirely. their wizard *is* publishing (sometimes broke) spfv1 records |
| 15:15 | <csm> | bah... who cares? |
| 15:15 | <Julian> | And, honestly, we wouldn't do it any differently than Microsoft. |
| 15:15 | <MarkK> | well, grant-wise and all, I think I can imagine ppl thinking it might be a good idea to show you are working *with* industry leaders, rather than against them |
| 15:15 | <csm> | they do not own enough of the net to make a difference technically... they are a financial juggernaut... not a technical one |
| 15:16 | <grumpy> | csm: there are many folks in the world who follow whatever MS does. We are an anti-forgery community, not an anti-MS community or a pro-OSS community. |
| 15:16 | <grumpy> | csm: they own enough of the MUA market to make a difference |
| 15:16 | <csm> | I am not either one of those right now... I want to tell the truth and state facts |
| 15:16 | <grumpy> | MS also owns hotmail and msn. |
| 15:16 | <Julian> | Microsoft doesn't appear to have much experience with the MTA world. Look at Exchange and PRA. |
| 15:16 | <MarkK> | I had hoped to keep politics out of it; but if the community wants it in, I'll abide by that, of course |
| 15:17 | <csm> | okay... enough discussion... MarkK when can I get the initial content? |
| 15:17 | <grumpy> | csm: expect PHB to claim that anything that isn't rabidly pro-MS to be rabidly anti-MS, even if you just state technical facts. |
| 15:17 | <Julian> | Ok, look, we shouldn't let ourselves be hold from stating the facts out of the fear of having to part with MS. |
| 15:18 | <grumpy> | Julian: in a perfect world, you would be right. |
| 15:18 | <csm> | we aren't going to write the document in irc are we fellas? |
| 15:18 | <MarkK> | I can stretch up the SenderID paragraph a bit, but not too much without going into the PRA |
| 15:18 | <csm> | MarkK I would like a technical description of the PRA included |
| 15:18 | <Julian> | *sigh* |
| 15:19 | <csm> | anyway when can I expect the content? |
| 15:19 | <Julian> | Perhaps we really could do that argumentation vector distilling thing |
| 15:19 | <MarkK> | csm: then I'd like to see a motion to that effect, please |
| 15:19 | <grumpy> | MarkK: actually, that is a point you should make. SenderID is, effectively, the PRA. If you are talking about SenderID instead of SPF, then you are talking about the PRA. |
| 15:19 | <Julian> | So we know what arguments there are and which ones should be included in the statement. |
| 15:21 | <csm> | motion: the chair requests that MarkK provide 3 to 4 paragraphs of technical discussion regarding SPF/Sender-ID (which I believe requires discussing PRA) to the chair for inclusion in a comprehensive document to be submitted for approval to the council |
| 15:21 | <MarkK> | Perhaps I can incorportate "3a. Fitness of purpose."? |
| 15:21 | <Julian> | (We should do that on one of the mailing lists.) |
| 15:22 | <grumpy> | 1521u: seconded |
| 15:22 | <csm> | votes? |
| 15:22 | <Julian> | 1521u: abstain |
| 15:22 | <MarkK> | 1521u: abstain |
| 15:22 | <Julian> | Huh? |
| 15:22 | <csm> | the motion is voted down |
| 15:22 | <csm> | any other business? |
| 15:23 | <grumpy> | next meeting date? |
| 15:23 | <csm> | January 8 2005 |
| 15:23 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 15:23 | <Julian> | ok |
| 15:23 | <Julian> | Has anyone queried Meng's calendar? |
| 15:24 | <grumpy> | not for next month |
| 15:24 | <csm> | the chair officially thanks the members for the succintness of todays meeting |
| 15:24 | <csm> | we are adjourned |
| 15:24 | <grumpy> | csm: isn't there supposed to be a motion and vote on adjourning? |
| 15:24 | <MarkK> | csm: I will 'unofficialy' draft such a thing, and present it before next meeting; I 'abstained' to the motion, as I rather not discuss PRA; but we'll see if I can do it without sound politically unsound. :) |
| 15:24 | <csm> | not necessarily... |
| 15:25 | * | Julian is going to work out the various points that various people wish to be made. |
| 15:25 | <csm> | we covered 100% of the agenda and there was no additional business noted |
| 15:25 | <csm> | if the members wish it we can vote for adjournment... the chair however is not that anal retentive! |
| 15:25 | <csm> | :-) |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | csm: I think the point of voting for adjourment is to make sure there isn't any more new business |
| 15:26 | <MarkK> | the chair has sole discretion as to opening/adjourning |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | anyway, thanks for the productive meeting |
| 15:26 | <csm> | :-) |
| 15:26 | <csm> | anon all! |
| 15:26 | <Julian> | Thanks, too. |
| 15:26 | * | csm has to scoot off to the office |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | again, I'll try and get a final draft ready by Jan 1 |
| 15:26 | <MarkK> | good day! |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | please send me comments! |
| 15:26 | <grumpy> | bibi |
| 15:26 | <Julian> | grumpy: I'll send you my suggestions. |
| 15:27 | <grumpy> | 60 seconds before I post transcripts. speak now if you want anything published |
| 15:27 | <csm> | bah! |
| 15:27 | <csm> | :-) |
| 15:27 | <MarkK> | I already did :) |
| 15:27 | <csm> | oh... and b0rk! |