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/2005/01/08_irc_log.html.

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

--- Sat Jan 8 17:13:06 UTC 2005 ---
17:13<Julian>freeside: Are you there? AFAIK, Greg Connor actually has moderator privileges for spf-discuss. Does the same apply to Scott Kitterman and spf-help?
17:31<Julian>(I mean, technically.)
17:31<freeside>yes, i think so
17:31<freeside>they have listowner privileges.
17:31<Julian>Ok, thanks.
17:31<freeside>they can go do whatever they want on those lists.
17:31<grumpy>cool
17:31<grumpy>thanks freeside
17:31<freeside>i can add you guys too if you want
17:32<freeside>or just get the list admin password off them.
17:32<Julian>No, I fully trust in Greg's and Scott's abilities. :)
17:32<grumpy>ditto, but in case of an emergancy, it might be useful.
17:32<Julian>And it's not as if I hadn't anything to do with my time... :)
17:32<grumpy>how about sending the password(s) to spf-private?
17:32<Julian>Good idea.
17:32<grumpy>then we can dig it out if we ever need it
17:32*grumpy agrees with Julian about time issues
17:33*Julian is currently finishing the minutes of the last meeting.
17:34<grumpy>The good news for the day is that draft-schlitt-spf-classic has been picked up by the IETF ADs as "being evaluated" and sent off to "dea-dir"
17:35*grumpy goes off to find out WTF "dea-dir" is. (I'm guessing the directorate, but....)
17:36<Julian>grumpy: Very good. Do you still plan on submitting another iteration of the spec?
17:37<grumpy>yes, I found a bunch more work to do.
17:37<grumpy>for example, the sections are in "the wrong order"
17:38<grumpy>and I'm merging the "process limits" and "security consideration" sections.
17:38<Julian>Ok.
17:39<grumpy>Oh, and according to an IETF web page, RFCs are supposed to use "American" spelling/grammar, so "foo." is correct. :-<
17:40<Julian>Ignore it.
17:40<Julian>This should be only a guideline.
17:41<grumpy>I'm not sure if that is a battle I want to fight.
17:42<grumpy>s/I want to/I think would be productive to/
17:43<Julian>Well, fighting to establish the ISO date format world-wide isn't really "productive" on first sight either.
17:44<grumpy>Yeah, but I may well have burnt all my default "good will" with the IETF folks during the MARID fiasco.
17:45<Julian>Do whatever you think is right. :)
17:45<Julian>Just don't ask me, because if you do, I will tell you "use the new/logical quoting style".
17:45<Julian>;-)
17:45<grumpy>Well, the minutes of the Jan 5 IESG meeting are out today and it looks like all the SPF/SenderID I-Ds got sent off to the dea-dir and, yes, that is the directorate.
17:46<grumpy>and they have a mailing list, but I'm not sure if I can subscribe to it.
17:46<grumpy>or who is on it.
17:46<Julian>What's the URL of the minutes?
17:47<grumpy>Julian: as you know, I think the logical (hacker) quoting style is better, I just think it would be more productive to argue about other things, like maybe getting spf-classic made a standard-track RFC rather than an experimental.
17:47<grumpy>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/status_of_item.cgi
17:47<Julian>I agree.
17:49<grumpy>new mailing list to subscribe to: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dea-dir
17:50<grumpy>although it looks like it may be moderated and closed
18:46*Julian is away. Feel free to proceed without me if you have quorum.
19:01<csm>okay so who is here?
19:03<csm>hello?
19:03<csm>it's after 1900
19:03<grumpy>ugh
19:03<grumpy>sorry, lost track of time
19:03<grumpy>I'm here!
19:04<grumpy>freeside was here just a little while ago, I haven't heard from MarkK
19:04<csm>okay well... with freeside we'd have 3... isn't that enough?
19:04<grumpy>I thought the quorum is 4...
19:05<grumpy>So, we wouldn't be able to vote on anything, but reports could still be given
19:05<csm>okay well... without a quorom I would prefer to defer the meeting
19:05<csm>I had to travel the end of the week and thus was quite disorganized
19:05<grumpy>ok
19:06<grumpy>Well, how long do you want to wait for freeside and MarkK to show up?
19:06<csm>I don;t...
19:07<csm>meeting isn't happening... they're not here...
19:07<grumpy>hmmm.... :-<
19:07<csm>I'll send an email out later announcing the next meeting time
19:07<grumpy>when should our next meeting be?
19:07<csm>next saturday I guess
19:08<grumpy>would you be able to deal with Wed?
19:08<csm>this next week is a normal week... people have to work
19:08<grumpy>yeah
19:08<grumpy>It has just been a while since we have had a meeting, and waiting another week sounds a little long.
19:09<csm>I don't see Wenesday as a legitimate possibility
19:09<grumpy>ok
19:09<csm>unless our European brothers want to stay up late
19:09<grumpy>Or us having to get up real early.
19:09*grumpy sighs
19:10<grumpy>Welp, it is 10 after. I guess we can call it quits.
19:10<grumpy>I'll be around for a little while, in case a quorum appears.
19:10<csm>yup...
19:11<csm>somehow I doubt it and I have errands to run this afternoon so I cannot hang out and wait for it
19:11<grumpy>ok
22:13*Julian is back.

This report was generated at Sat Jan 8 23:59:59 UTC 2005.