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/2006/02/04_irc_log.html.

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

--- Fri Feb 3 16:32:00 UTC 2006 ---
16:32<SDGathman>Looks like I'm here.
16:32<SDGathman>Off to work I go...
--- Sat Feb 4 21:22:49 UTC 2006 ---
21:22<SDGathman>testing 1,2,3
21:26<Julian>I'm here.
21:26<Julian>I'll try to introduce you to Bouner now. Perhaps I'll be disconnected a few times (there seems to be a bug with DCC in X-Chat).
21:30<SDGathman>ok
21:30<willix>hi everyone
21:31<willix>are we all here
21:32<Julian>MarkK is still missing, and we're at T = -28min.
21:32<SDGathman>I am busy configuring an SPF authentication filter for a client ...
21:33<SDGathman>He was getting 65000+ messages a day, all but 21 of which were forged.
21:34<willix>21/65000 is too large ham/spam ration.. Were they all bounces or direct email to him?
21:35<SDGathman>All direct mail to him.
21:36<SDGathman>It is now throwing out SPF fail, and connections with no valid PTR, HELO, or SPF (3 strikes rule). This reduces the spam to 100+ per day, which he can
21:36<SDGathman>manage. No content filtering.
21:37<SDGathman>I had to throttle the incoming SMTP connections in the firewall to prevent thrashing the gateway machine with the shear volume of crud.
21:37<SDGathman>He is a salesman, with 20 domains heavily advertized on websites. So that made him a big target for spammers.
21:38<Julian>For the record, this channel is being logged and copied to the spf-council mailing list by Wayne's bot. You'd better discuss non-council issues on #spf so the logs don't get cluttered.
21:59<Julian>T = -1min
21:59<MarkK>Good evening
22:00<willix>hold on for 1 minute
22:01<Julian>MarkK: You're always so punctual, it's amazing!
22:01<Julian>:-)
22:01<MarkK>:)
22:01<willix>ok
22:02<shew>Hello.
22:02<shew>Sorry for my delay.
22:02<MarkK>ok, are we all accounted for?
22:03<Julian>Let me assemble a accumulated agenda.
22:03<Julian>I.e., two minutes please.
22:05<MarkK>It looks like we're all here. In that case, I call the meeting to order, and hand the floor to the Secretary, who will supply the accumulated aganda.
22:07<SDGathman>Who is jeff?
22:08<Julian>He has been a long-time observer of #spf-council
22:08<Julian>Today's meeting agenda: http://archives.listbox.com/spf-council@v2.listbox.com/200602/0012.html
22:08<Julian>Did I miss anything?
22:08<willix>\who
22:09<MarkK>I assume you'll got the agenda, right? Lets proceed with item 1 then
22:09<Julian>Fine.
22:10<shew>I'm fine with the agenda.
22:10<willix>there seems to be delays (like 30sec+) for me...
22:10<willix>I'm fine with agenda btw
22:10<MarkK>"Thank Greg Connor for having acted as the election officer (Julian), and all members of the outgoing council who would not be returning for their time and efforts and officially confirm their "advisory" status. (William)"
22:11<shew>O(h, minor agenda quibble: #4 and #6 are similar/contractory--might should be dealt with at the same time.)
22:11<Julian>A procedural matter: the old council has used the following convention for making resolutions: 1. someone say "Motion: <text>", 2. someone else say "<utc-motion-time>: seconded" (or something equivalent), 3. votes should be cast as "<utc-motion-time>: (yes|no|abstain|...)".
22:11<Julian>Should we keep this convention?
22:12<MarkK>indeed, thank you julian :)
22:12<Julian>I think it has worked well.
22:12<shew>Thank you. :-)
22:12<shew>I motion that the convention Julian suggested be kept. :-)
22:13<Julian>22:12u: seconded. # ;-)
22:13<Julian>Votes?
22:13<MarkK>2212u: yes
22:13<shew>2213u: Yes.
22:13<SDGathman>22:12u: yes
22:13<Julian>2212u: yes
22:13<MarkK>motion carries!
22:13<Julian>willix?
22:13<willix>212u: yes
22:14<willix>delays, I'm not sure why
22:14<Julian>Ok, I'm sure you got the point. :-)
22:14<MarkK>Oh yeah, julian, please explain the quorum thingy :)
22:14<Julian>Now let's proceed to item 1.
22:14<Julian>Oh, yeah.
22:15<Julian>Another convention: If someone is typing a long message and wants the others to wait for that message, he should type "...".
22:15<Julian>...
22:16<Julian>The old council's quorum rule was that "A quorum of 4 council members must be present for a vote to be valid." That is, 4 members must be alive, but if only 3 do cast a vote, the result is still valid.
22:16<Julian>Do we want to keep that rule?
22:16<willix>yes
22:16<Julian>Any opposed?
22:17<shew>Queries on the mechanics of Agenda Item #1: Does the "thanking" mean an email from spf-council? Does "advisory" mean keeping the same access privileges of current council members?
22:17<SDGathman>Motion: keep quorum rule from old council
22:17<Julian>I don't think we need to re-approve all of the old council rules.
22:17<SDGathman>ok
22:17<Julian>Only those we want to change.
22:18<shew>I'm fine with keeping the quorum rule.
22:18<SDGathman>How about a snail mail card.
22:18<willix>Lets assume that each council keeps existing council's rules unless it votes otherwise
22:18<willix>s/existing/previous/
22:18<MarkK>thank you, julian; I think we can safely proceed to item 1. now
22:19<Julian>shew: "thanking" could mean anything. I think it should mean: we make a motion and it is included in the minutes, just like the "thanks" in the old council's last meeting <http://new.openspf.org/Council_Meeting/2006-01-08>.
22:20<willix>that is correct, separately voted resolution with info being made available on spf pages
22:20<Julian>"advisory" means that they retain all council member privileges except for voting rights and they cannot have any official positions on the council.
22:20<shew>Julian, willix: Thank you.
22:21<Julian>In other words, they keep talking privileges on #spf-council and the council mailing lists, and read access to spf-private.
22:21<shew>I am fine with official-ish "thanking" email, or mention in logs/website, or both.
22:21<shew>And thank you for the clarification on the meaning of advisory. I am quite happy with that.
22:21<shew>No more questions on my end.
22:21<MarkK>yes, I'd say we do both: thank them in email, and make an extra mention on the website
22:22<Julian>Motion: The new council extends its thanks to Greg Connor for having done a good job as the 2006 council election officer.
22:22<shew>22:22 UTC: Seconded.
22:22<Julian>Votes?
22:22<SDGathman>17:22u seconded
22:22<MarkK>2222u: yes
22:22<Julian>2222u: abstain
22:22<SDGathman>17:22u yes
22:22<willix>2222: yes
22:22<shew>2222u: Yes.
22:22<SDGathman>22:22u yes
22:22<SDGathman>sorry
22:22<MarkK>motion carries
22:23<MarkK>Ok, with no objections, lets move to item 2
22:23<Julian>For the record: I think Greg did a great job, but I don't want to abuse my dual position of a member of both the old and the new council.
22:23<Julian>(Call me weird.)
22:23<Julian>Do we want to thank the old council members, too?
22:24<SDGathman>We won't fully appreciate their contribution until we've been through it ourselves.
22:24<MarkK>it seems at least reasonable to mention them (those that did not return) on the website
22:25<Julian>MarkK: Mention them how? They're already mentioned in several places.
22:25<Julian>(...w/o an explicit "thank you", though.)
22:26<Julian>(...most notably on <http://new.openspf.org/Council_Election/2006-01>.)
22:26<shew>My only minor qualm is that it seems a bit self-serving to go into a new position and thank all the hard work of the previous folks. So, I'm fine with thanking them, though I would prefer emphasis on being eager for their continued advise.
22:26<shew>(ie, sef-serving/self-grandising, as it were. hard to explain.)
22:26<Julian>If someone else wants to make a motion, please do.
22:26<MarkK>well, in the strictest sense. they're still around in an advisory capacity (so, they're not really gone even)
22:27<willix>where are they mentioned?
22:27<Julian>http://new.openspf.org/Council_Election/2006-01
22:27<MarkK>so, maybe we leave that for next year?
22:27<shew>No, we have to mention something--especially we have to "confirm their advisory status."
22:28<Julian>Do we? I'm not sure.
22:28<shew>I'm fine with the thanking thing if both are done together where it's mentioned.
22:28<shew>Good point. We have to confirm their advisory==full-non-voting-access status.
22:29<Julian>Re advisory status: this has originally been set in a resolution of the old council. Do we need to re-approve that?
22:29<shew>I think it would be in good taste, even if not technically necessary.
22:29<willix>I would rather it be confirmed in this case
22:29<MarkK>shew: I'd say, strictly speaking, confirming their advisory status is not required, as an earlier resolution already makes it so
22:29<SDGathman>That implicitly recognizes their contribution as well.
22:30<Julian>BTW, the old council's resolution is here: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2005/07/10_irc_log.html#20050710T2021
22:30<Julian>(I haven't managed to write down the minutes for that meeting yet.)
22:30<Julian>Well, ok, someone make a motion then.
22:30<shew>Before that..
22:31<shew>Given that it seems everyone will agree on the advisory status,
22:31<shew>do we have consensus on the "thanking" bit?
22:31<Julian>I do not disagree.
22:31<shew>Okay.
22:32<MarkK>Julian: I do not disagree on any particular point
22:32<shew>I'll paste the previous motions together then. One sec..
22:33<shew>Oops, I don't have the full names.
22:34<Julian>Look here: http://new.openspf.org/Council_Election/2006-01
22:34<shew>(I was referring to them as "exiting members of the previous council." in my buffer.
22:34<shew>(thanks. editing.)
22:35<shew>still editing..
22:36<MarkK>ok
22:37<shew>Motion: The new council extends its thanks to the exiting members from the previous council: Greg Connor, Chuck Mead, Wayne Schlitt, and Meng Weng Wong, and re-affirms the following motion from the previous council: "Council members losing regular member status shall be given Advisory Member status for one election term. Advisory members have no voting rights, but shall be allowed full reading and posting access to the public and p
22:37<shew>rivate council mailing lists and talk on the #spf-council IRC channel. The council can decide to deny advisory membership to specific past members."
22:37<Julian>It doesn't have to be perfect. It can be paraphrased in the minutes.
22:37<Julian>2237u: seconded
22:37<Julian>Votes?
22:38<shew>2237u: Yes.
22:38<Julian>2237u: yes
22:38<MarkK>2237u: yes
22:38<SDGathman>2237u: yes
22:38<Julian>willix?
22:38<willix>I was working on draft when there was another delay
22:39<willix>2237u: yes
22:39<MarkK>motion carries!
22:39<shew>(If you have better wording I'm fine with it overruling mine.)
22:39<Julian>It's fine.
22:39<willix>BTW - I think the delays I have are due to bitch checking my mailbox for new mail and it takes a while (102142 messages).
22:39<shew>ok
22:39<Julian>Next item:
22:39<Julian>2. The council positions
22:39<Julian>a. Which council positions do we need in the first place? (Julian)
22:39<Julian>b. Establish the official roles/functions within the new Council.
22:39<Julian>(MarkK)
22:40<Julian>In the old council, there have been the Chair, the Executive Director, and the Secretary.
22:40<willix>I'm trying to see if I can disable it, go on for now
22:40<Julian>I think we need at least the chair and the secretary.
22:40<Julian>Discussion?
22:40<MarkK>julian: is there a reason to deviate from those positions?
22:41<MarkK>I think we pretty much need all 3 positions filled
22:41<Julian>MarkK: I'm not sure what the E.D. would be supposed to do in the new council. Are you?
22:41<SDGathman>What does the E.D. do? What did he do?
22:41<MarkK>well, yeah, that position has become a bit 'empty' now with meng gone
22:42<shew>What would the difference be between the Chair and Executive Director?
22:42<Julian>http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/6 : "The Council Executive Director runs the day to day operations, acts as the spokesman, and generally handles the public relations of the SPF project. Any public statements made by the Council Executive Director shall adhere to the common position of the council and shall not ignore significant positions within the project community without the explicit approval of the council. [...]"
22:43<shew>Oh, thank you. (reading on the site.)
22:43<Julian>The position of E.D. was originally created for Meng, who was (and probably still is) attending a lot of conferences and advocating SPF to ESPs/ISPs, etc.
22:43<MarkK>I think, in reality, ppl either approach the Chair or the Secreatary
22:43<SDGathman>So the E.D. is the public laison, the chair runs the meetings.
22:44<Julian>That was the idea, but Meng has been absent for large parts.
22:44<willix>I'm not sure we really need 3 roles for 5-person council...
22:45<Julian>E.g., what are "the day to day operations"?
22:45<willix>And in previous council, I think a lot of what ED was supposed to be done was actually done by Julian
22:45<Julian>willix: Well, having 5 roles might not be such a bad idea, if we knew 5 roles that are actually useful.
22:46<Julian>willix: Meng did do most of the PR. I did the website, but Meng gave interviews and did most of the advocacy.
22:46<SDGathman>This could be a gifting issue. If someone on this council likes/is good at press relations stuff, they should be the E.D.
22:46<SDGathman>Or maybe PR officer.
22:47<Julian>I think now that Meng is no longer a regular member of the council, PR should be put on all our shoulders equally.
22:47<MarkK>the PR officer / E.D. kinda were the same thing
22:47<Julian>PR is (should be) our common responsibility.
22:47<willix>I'd rather PR be done as that people email particular address that goes to the council mail list
22:47<willix>(or possibly private mail list)
22:48<Julian>I think that spf-discuss and spf-council should be the primary PR contacts.
22:48<willix>and then one of us takes this up depending on question, location of newspaper, etc
22:48<shew>I think there are a few things getting mushed together here.
22:48<Julian>(Plus the secretary and spf-private for stuff that _strictly_ needs to be kept private.)
22:48<willix>Separate email alias for it would be better but going to spf-council list
22:49<Julian>willix: Technicalities aside, I like your suggestion.
22:49<Julian>shew: Which ones?
22:49<shew>My reading is that the E.D. could more legitimately speak-on-their-own on behalf of the SPF project and council, which *really* did fit things for Meng, whereas everyone else could do that, but would more or less be expected to get it okay'ed. Was that sort of the deal more or less as far as how things really happened?
22:49<shew>Because that's a bit different from handing website PR and things of that nature.
22:49<Julian>Definitely, yes.
22:50<Julian>I mean, it was definitely hanled that way, yes.
22:50<Julian>hanDled, duh.
22:52<Julian>Cool, I gave Bouncer the correct instructions.
22:52<shew>Okay, so from a practical point of view, let's say Julian was the Chair and was also either the E.D. or there was no E.D., and I am interviewed for a newspaper article or I'm going to a conference representing SPF and the council. How would both cases differ in how I would be expected to interact with the council first to clear things up on how I should present myself? (Separate from the politeness and normal-sensibility issues whe
22:52<shew>re I should mention this in advance.)
22:53<willix_>sorry about that. I'll try to find different irc client for next time, its just been long time for me...
22:53<Julian>I don't think it would make much sense for anyone besides Meng to be the E.D.
22:54<MarkK>well, for the record, I do not think one person should hold two positions
22:54<Julian>Agreed.
22:54<shew>("Both cases" being there was an E.D. versus there was no E.D.)
22:54<Julian>The E.D. position was created specifically for Meng because he was the inventor of SPF and he was _de_facto_ doing all the PR work.
22:54<shew>Okay.
22:55<willix_>I think anyone on the council can represent SPF project
22:55<Julian>Now this has gone away. Meng is no longer a regular council member, and he also has slightly shifted away from advocating SPF.
22:55<willix_>on the conferences and other events that is
22:55<Julian>I agree.
22:56<willix_>If they are asked to speak about it, then it would be good if the person notifies everyone through spf-council list
22:56<Julian>True. Or spf-discuss.
22:56<SDGathman>To pick up shew's question, if I'm meeting with a congress critter, what should I say are my credentials? SPF-Council member?
22:56<willix_>yes
22:56<Julian>(Remember my report from the June 2005 MAAWG conference I sent to spf-discuss.)
22:56<MarkK>indeed
22:56<Julian>SDGathman: I think so.
22:57<Julian>I attended the MAAWG conference as a council member, i.e. as a representative of the project.
22:58<Julian>So, does anyone think we should keep the E.D. position as-is?
22:58<shew>I don't.
22:58<willix_>I don't think we should
22:58<Julian>If not, does anyone think we should keep the E.D. position in a modified way?
22:58<MarkK>Perhaps is time to drop it
22:59<MarkK>the position, that is :)
22:59<shew>Here's one small thing:
22:59<SDGathman>I could see a PR directory if someone was gifted motivation in that way.
22:59<Julian>SDGathman: Interesting idea.
22:59<SDGathman>directory -> director
22:59<shew>The E.D. (in my understanding), could send out a press release on his own, by himself, while generally I would think that the rest of us should collaborate and do something like that as a group.
23:00<shew>(or that's my understanding)
23:00<Julian>No, I don't think that Meng was supposed to make formal press releases on his own.
23:00<shew>Okay, good.
23:00<Julian>At least not on behalf of the project.
23:00<Julian>And he didn't.
23:00<shew>Okay, then as far as day-to-day things, if there's a disagreement but no quorum, who decides?
23:01<Julian>No quorum, no decision.
23:01<MarkK>what julian said
23:01<Julian>That's the pain of shared responsibility, I guess. :-)
23:02<willix_>I have draft for motion - "
23:02<willix_>2006 SPF Council will have two official positions - council chair,
23:02<willix_>who chairs the meeting and is responsible for meeting agenda and
23:02<willix_>council secretary responsible for meeting minutes and publication
23:02<willix_>of council resolutions"
23:02<shew>Okay. So conflicts in PR type individual claims just remain until there is quorum, at which point we all grow up and figure out how not to disagree like that publicly and in a publicly-representative manner again. I'm fine with that.
23:02<willix_>I think on PR we will need separate motion
23:03<Julian>willix_: Can your motion be simplified to "The position of E.D. shall be abolished and the according responsibilities be shared among all council members"?
23:03<shew>(Sorry: I meant "Going to a conference, how to mention this one point as our public stance" type pr.)
23:03<shew>I agree with Julian's request.
23:04<willix_>I'm fine with Julian's request, but I'd personally prefer to not directly say abolish
23:04<Julian>BTW, I think we can very well have public dissent. This is not a disgrace, and it happened all the time with the old council.
23:04<SDGathman>willix, I agree. It sounds like there was something wrong with the position.
23:05<Julian>s/abolish/dissolve/ ?
23:05<willix_>the same thing
23:05<Julian>Make a better suggestion.
23:05<shew>What about starting with something like "The 2006 Council will not have a separate posotion of an E.D., but rather the responsibilities of that position will be shared among all council members."
23:05<willix_>that is why I prefer to name new positions without explicitely saying we removed ED
23:05<Julian>shew: Good one!
23:06<shew>Thanks.
23:06<MarkK>make a motion!
23:06<shew>Perhaps added onto Willix's text?
23:06<shew>Willix, would you like to do the edit and put both things together in a motion?
23:07<Julian>Look, this is not so much about wording a perfect resolution text. That can be done later. This is about phrasing the resolution _thoroughly_ and _unambiguously_.
23:07<Julian>As the secretary, I have usually reworded resolutions for the website while keeping their intention.
23:07<willix_>Ok, so you want them shew's text added to mine and it proposed?
23:09<willix_>Motion - "2006 SPF Council will have two official positions - council chair,
23:09<willix_>who chairs the meeting and is responsible for meeting agenda and
23:09<willix_>council secretary, who is responsible for meeting minutes and
23:09<willix_>publication of council resolutions. The 2006 Council will not have
23:09<willix_>a separate posotion of an E.D., but rather the responsibilities of
23:09<willix_>that position will be shared among all council members.
23:09<willix_>"
23:09<Julian>The thing is, we don't really need to re-approve the definitions of "Chair" <http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/5> and "Secretary" <http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/7>. Those resolutions can stay as they currently are, I think.
23:10<Julian>But I can agree to the latest text.
23:10<Julian>2309u: seconded.
23:10<Julian>Votes?
23:10<MarkK>2309u: yes
23:10<Julian>2309u: yes
23:10<SDGathman>2309u: yes
23:10<willix_>2309: yes
23:11<shew>2310u: yes
23:11<Julian>shew: I think you mean 2309u (AKA William's motion), right?
23:11<shew>correct.
23:11<shew>2309u: Yes.
23:11<shew>(Sorry, I was using time-voted. My misunderstanding.)
23:11<Julian>No problem. ;-)
23:11<Julian>So ordered.
23:12<Julian>Next item: b. Establish the official roles/functions within the new Council.
23:12<shew>(If I have made that mistake in my previous votes, feel free to consider me to have corrected-my-voting-time accordingly.)
23:12<Julian>Who's gonna be Chair, and who's gonna be Secretary?
23:13<MarkK>without going into details, I wish to say that the overwhelming majoritry by which julian was voted should probably be reflected in the position he's holding
23:13<Julian>I don't agree.
23:14<shew>I would think so too.
23:14<willix_>I'd like to see Julian chair
23:14<MarkK>me too
23:14<willix_>but he did an extremely good work as secretary too
23:14<Julian>I could take on the role as chair, but I don't think it is a very special role.
23:15<MarkK>anything else, I think, would be rather a slap on the face of the voters; although he made a heck of a secretary :)
23:15<shew>Well, the power of the secretary possibly trumps the power of the Chair.
23:15<Julian>One thing is certain, I would like not to be the next secretary. ;-)
23:15<shew>After all, the secretary writes the current-status, and writes history. :-)
23:15<SDGathman>We don't want a Peter principle here. Can we let Julian chose?
23:16<willix_>I can typically deal with writing historical summaries & records if that is all it takes
23:16<willix_>But I'm not particularly good webmaster
23:16<Julian>The webmaster positions are independent from the council positions.
23:17<Julian>I can stay the primary webmaster.
23:17<willix_>yes, but you were basicly the one maintaining council website in your position as secretary
23:17<Julian>So what?
23:18<shew>Julian: Do you have any special objection to taking on the Chair position? ie, do you have reasons other than modesty-related ones to not want to be chair? (I am having difficulty wording that more gracefully.)
23:18<Julian>Everyone on the council should be able to edit content on the website.
23:19<Julian>shew: No. I already said that I don't consider the chair as a very special or honorary role. Chuck was the old council's chair for a long time, and he wasn't voted #1 by far.
23:19<shew>Okay. Thanks.
23:20<Julian>I think I would be good at organizing the meetings (so much for the modesty *g*).
23:20<willix_>I think I'd rather get it over with. Jilian - do you have any objections to being chair of the SPF Council?
23:20<Julian>Not really, no.
23:21<willix_>Motion: Jilian will be chair of 200 SPF Council
23:21<shew>(timestamp)
23:21<SDGathman>23:21u seconded
23:21<willix_>2321u: yes
23:21<shew>2321u: yes
23:21<MarkK>2321u: yes
23:21<SDGathman>23:21u yes
23:21<Julian>I guess that motion's wording will be corrected by the secretary.
23:22<Julian>2321u: abstain
23:22<willix_>2006 SPF Council, yes
23:22<Julian>Not only that. You misspelled my name.
23:22<Julian>Nevermind.
23:22<shew>I'll still vote for you for secretary though, willix_. :-)
23:23<Julian>MarkK: Would you as the acting chair call the motion as carried?
23:24<willix_>Ok, I think its fair for Julian to have this correct in the SPF logs. The motion 2321u was - "Julian will be chair of 2006 SPF Council"
23:24<MarkK>motion carries!
23:25<Julian>MarkK: Should I take over now?
23:25<MarkK>yes, I hand the chair to julian
23:25<Julian>MarkK: Thanks for acting as the chairman until now!
23:26<Julian>Ok, let's go on. Who's gonna be the secretary?
23:26<Julian>Any questions about the secretary's job description?
23:26<willix_>yes.
23:26<willix_>Are the primary functions limited to writing summary of meeting minutes?
23:26<MarkK>tough call; I suck at the wicki/website stuff.
23:27<Julian>I do have a comment: I don't think the new secretary should be required to write as lengthy the minutes as I did.
23:27<Julian>willix_: I think the idea for the secretary position was to take care of the council's documents (the meeting minutes and the resolutions only being examples) and being a contact person between the council and the community.
23:30<Julian>Everyone on the council can edit the website, but no one is required to. Not even the secretary, I think. If the secretary wants, he can submit material to the webmasters and delegate them to edit the website.
23:31<Julian>So, any other questions or discussion?
23:32<shew>none here.
23:32<SDGathman>Do we need concensus before making controversial website edits? E.g. in checking SPF faq, do we try to have neutral POV for accounting for forwarders versus requring SRS?
23:32<willix_>Ok, with that in mind I can volunteer to be secretary, but note that minutes would probably come as emails to spf-council list and I'll then take corrections and post final version in a week.
23:33<Julian>SDGathman: If you think that some issue is controversial, then you'd better check back with the council.
23:33<Julian>...or at the very least with the community on spf-discuss.
23:34<Julian>Ok, motion: William shall be the new secretary.
23:34<shew>2334u: seconded
23:34<Julian>Votes?
23:34<Julian>2334u: yes
23:34<SDGathman>23:34u: yes
23:34<shew>2334u: yes
23:34<willix_>2334u: abstain
23:34<Julian>MarkK?
23:35<MarkK>I like that idea; I coukd do it too, of course; but it seems fitting to have 1 new member take up such a role
23:35<MarkK>2334u: yes
23:35<Julian>So ordered. William, I assume you accept?
23:35<willix_>yes
23:35<Julian>Great, thanks, William.
23:35<Julian>Next item: 3. Set the way we will meet, and the frequency. (MarkK)
23:36<shew>Question on that:
23:36<willix_>Once peer month seems good enough to me and we can meet more often when needed
23:36<MarkK>I agree with Julian, and with myself, lol, that we should at least outline a frequency
23:36<shew>For individual questions/points/motions: I'd like to be able to make them and vote via email or other means, without necessitating a meeting every time.
23:37<Julian>shew: That should be possible. There is no resolution to a different effect.
23:37<shew>The things in this meeting aren't a good example, but if there's something that needs voting on, I don't think we should have to call a meeting every time--is it implicitely accepted to discuss and vote on something via spf-council for individual things?
23:37<shew>Julian: Good. Thank you.
23:38<Julian>We could vote by snail mail if we wanted. ;-)
23:39<Julian>The frequency guideline shouldn't be a strict requirement, just a guideline. Thus I think we should try to meet at least bi-weekly. As I said on spf-council, the meetings can be very short if there's nothing to report and discuss.
23:39<Julian>But having _interactive_ sessions from time to time is good, I think.
23:39<MarkK>yes, I think bi-weekly is good; if only to say we have nothing to say, basically; but just to we stay on top of things
23:40<SDGathman>agreed
23:41<willix_>do we need a motion on this? I think its ok as is and leave it to discretion of chair to call regular meetings
23:41<shew>I would be happy with monthly or bi-weekly--as long as they're guidelines and the Chair can move things around as makes sense.
23:41<Julian>So, I think http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/4 already matches our intent and no formal reapproval is required.
23:42<Julian>Uh, I think we can drop the "Wednesday 22:00 UTC" requirement.
23:42<Julian>Any opposed?
23:42<MarkK>nope
23:42<shew>Actually, that says "shall", implying that it's not a guideline.
23:42<shew>So I'm opposed.
23:42<Julian>Ok, let me rephrase it.
23:43<Julian>Motion: The council shall try to hold meetings on IRC every two weeks. Additionally, interim meetings may be called with 24 hours notice on the council mailing list.
23:43<SDGathman>The troops wanted reassurance that something was attempting to be done.
23:43<shew>no
23:43<shew>"shall try".
23:43<shew>thinking.
23:44<Julian>s/shall try/tries/ ?
23:44<SDGathman>How about, "shall hold meetings every ... except as modified at the discretion of the chair"
23:44<MarkK>shew: no; "shall try" better conveys the intention than just "tries"
23:45<shew>"expects to hold meetings as a guideline every two weeks, but will at minimum hold a meeting every two months"
23:45<Julian>There's no way to enforce that.
23:45<shew>MarkK: My objection was to the idea that we will make the attempt, as I would prefer it to be more of a guideline that can be changed at the discretion of the Chair and the council as a whole.
23:46<MarkK>Julian, O never mind, then; I don't know what I'm saying. I never know what I'm saying. :)
23:46<shew>I am becoming too picky over something that is not important. I'll back off and let Julian re-word as he thinks appropriate, and try not to nit-pick the less important stuff.
23:46<Julian>Any objections to the 23:43 wording?
23:47<SDGathman>No, provided "shall try" is reworded to something less wimpy.
23:48<Julian>s/shall try to/shall/ ?
23:48<willix_>I have different draft: "The council chair should organize regular meetigns on IRC within 2 weeks
23:48<willix_>or more of each other. Additionally, interim meetings may be called with 24
23:48<willix_>hours notice on the council mailing list."
23:48<SDGathman>I like that.
23:48<shew>drop irc. We needn't limit ourselves in the resolution.
23:48<shew>drop "on irc".
23:49<Julian>What's "within 2 weeks or more of each other" supposed to mean? "Every two weeks or more frequently" or "every two weeks or less frequently"?
23:49<shew>never mind. What am I thinking. We can easily change later if we want.
23:49<Julian>Oh my. We're wasting our time I think.
23:50<Julian>I keep up my 23:39 motion. Someone either second that or make another motion.
23:50<MarkK>2339u: seconded
23:50<Julian>s/2339/2343/ # Doh.
23:51<Julian>Anyway. Votes?
23:51<Julian>2343u: yes
23:51<shew>2343u: Yes.
23:51<willix_>2343: yes
23:51<MarkK>2343u: yes
23:52<Julian>SDGathman?
23:52<SDGathman>23:43u yes
23:52<Julian>So ordered, thank you.
23:52<shew>Suggestion: Let's discuss Agenda Item #6 next, as that affects #4 and #5.
23:52<Julian>Any opposed?
23:52<shew>(#6 is the IAB appeal.)
23:53<shew>(The others are our agenda and how we post them in a press release.)
23:53<willix_>Yes, lets go ahead, 2 hours on procedural staff was too much
23:53<Julian>Ok, next item: 6. How to proceed with the IESG/IAB appeal?
23:53<Julian>Discussion, please.
23:53<willix_>I did not see clear consensus on spf-discuss
23:54<shew>I am for an appeal.
23:54<shew>Two reasons:
23:54<shew>(I typed this up a few minutes ago.)
23:54<shew>1. A delay on the order of a month is well worth it to get rid of the incompatibility.
23:54<shew>(re: Frank's note on a different IAB appeal.)
23:55<shew>2. It will help in our future work of putting together a future SPF standard in that we will have had a history of being "good ietf citizens", having both worked within the system and not allowing potentially damaging technical incompatibilities.
23:55<SDGathman>I think everyone agreed that the SenderID/SPF abuse is unjust. The disagreement is over whether the appeal is pragmatically helpful.
23:55<shew>Frank's note on an example IAB appeal taking just 4 weeks and overcoming..political issues pushes me towards voting for an appeal.
23:57<Julian>The IAB appeal mentioned by Frank was just an IESG decision to ban some person from an IETF mailing list. This is an easy to decide question. The SPF/S-ID incompatibility is more complex, and we can't expect the IAB members to be proficient with it.
23:57<willix_>I'm leaning more against going ahead wit it, or rather not being acively for it.
23:57<willix_>I think its not for nothing that it took IESG 4 months to decide first appeal,
23:57<willix_>I'm pretty sure they consulted IAB on this matter already.
23:57<willix_>Doing another appeal will also further delay RFC and I'm not at all sure that it
23:57<willix_>would be decided fast as it may start some internal IESG/IAB discussions again.
23:58<Julian>"I'm pretty sure they consulted IAB on this matter already" -- On what do you base your assumption?
23:59<shew>I do realize that IAB members may not be proficient with the general details of spf, but the idea of using one record in an incompatible context, creating a gratuitous incompatibility and hurting an "experiment"...do you think they would be confused at those issues if we laid them out clearly for them?
23:59<shew>They needn't be proficient in all of SPF/SenderID-related issues to see that this one small thing is a larger and clear problem.
23:59<willix_>there were IETF conferences and people meet in person
23:59<MarkK>I think I was pretty clear when I said I do not think much is to be gained from an appeal; in the sense it being realistic
23:59<Julian>shew: I don't think they would be confused. I am just pointing out that our issue is significantly more complex than the IAB appeal that Frank mentioned.

This report was generated at Sat Feb 4 23:59:59 UTC 2006.