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.
| --- Tue Feb 7 22:12:46 UTC 2006 --- |
| 22:12 | <Julian> | Damn. |
| 22:32 | <shew> | ? |
| 22:40 | <Julian> | I just got my internet connection restored. |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | ...still recovering from the outage. |
| 22:52 | <shew> | Ahh. |
| --- Sat Feb 11 22:00:11 UTC 2006 --- |
| 22:00 | <Julian> | Hrrm. |
| 22:00 | <Julian> | Let's wait 30min tops. |
| 22:00 | <shew> | Ok. |
| 22:11 | <SDGathman> | I'm here. |
| 22:12 | <Julian> | William and Mark K. aren't, though. |
| 22:23 | <Julian> | hi willix, we're waiting for Mark K. |
| 22:24 | <willix> | I'll wait - I'm little late as it is already too |
| 22:24 | <shew> | Do we have his phone number? |
| 22:26 | <Julian> | Yes, we do, but I'm not sure we should use it for that purpose. |
| 22:26 | <Julian> | I was hoping he'd read his mail in time for the meeting, but perhaps he is out of the town. |
| 22:27 | <willix> | if we have 4 people we can have meeting anyway |
| 22:30 | <Julian> | Yes, we could. |
| 22:30 | <shew> | I'm fine with both having a meeting and with delaying. |
| 22:31 | <shew> | Or rather with doing either thing, just not both. :-) |
| 22:31 | <Julian> | Ok, what do the others think? |
| 22:33 | <Julian> | SDGathman? |
| 22:33 | <SDGathman> | As long as we're not voting on critical things like appeal, I don't think Mark will mind. |
| 22:34 | <shew> | (I should note that even if we don't have an official meeting or actual resolutions and such, we could use the time here in irc to discuss ideas. |
| 22:34 | <shew> | ) |
| 22:34 | <Julian> | Ok, let's do that. |
| 22:35 | <SDGathman> | I am working on submitting a comment to groklaw.net about the appeal. It is a similar topic to the ODF fracas which they are currently covering. |
| 22:36 | <Julian> | Any last minute additions to the agenda? |
| 22:37 | <SDGathman> | New website. |
| 22:37 | <shew> | Since agenda item #2 allows for suggestions on what should be on our general agenda, I think that by definition we don't need any additions beforehand. :-) |
| 22:37 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Is that a sub-item to item #2? |
| 22:38 | <SDGathman> | Yes |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | 1. Regular reports at council meetings (or on the council mailing list)? |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | I think the regular meetings can serve as reporting and brief brainstorming or open discussion sessions. |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | Therefore I think that it would be good to have reports from all council members at the start of every regular meeting. Comments? |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | s/(all council members)/$1 who have something noteworthy to report/ |
| 22:40 | <shew> | As long as it doesn't...drag on, I think that's an excellent idea. |
| 22:41 | <Julian> | Any opposed to that idea? |
| 22:41 | <willix> | That is fine. Just don't count on too many reports every time |
| 22:41 | <shew> | Perhaps the Chair could adjust the timing as would make sense from meeting-to-meeting, possibly deferring continued discussion to the end of the agenda items if it starts going more than 5 min or something like that.. |
| 22:41 | <willix> | BTW - I have an event later this day. I can be here no longer then one hour |
| 22:42 | <shew> | (Hey, that's a good example of something that should be mentioned at the beginning of a meeting. :-) ) |
| 22:42 | <SDGathman> | I had another nice response from my SPF evangelism via DSN. |
| 22:42 | <willix> | Also I think we missed having chair officialy open the meeting |
| 22:42 | <Julian> | I'm mostly thinking of interesting tidbits that don't justify an entire mailing list post on their own. |
| 22:42 | <Julian> | SDGathman: DSN? What's that? |
| 22:43 | <Julian> | willix: Re officially opening the meeting: Well, I said "Ok, let's do that". ;-) |
| 22:43 | <SDGathman> | Delivery Status Notification - MFROM == <> |
| 22:43 | <Julian> | Oh, that. :-) |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | Nice to hear that people are actually open to your messages. |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | Ok, nobody objected to the idea of having reports at the beginning of meetings, so let's do it that way in the future. |
| 22:44 | <shew> | This is already going quicker than the last two meetings. :-) |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | Does anyone else have something noteworthy to report? |
| 22:45 | <willix> | Do we want resolution on it or is it just procedural matter for council meetings? |
| 22:45 | <shew> | I suggest it be considered a procedural, recognized-as-commonsense thing. |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | willix: I don't think we need a resolution for that. It's a matter of setting up the agendas. I'll just include an item "Reports" from now on. |
| 22:45 | <willix> | ok |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | Does anyone else have something noteworthy to report? |
| 22:46 | <shew> | Not here. |
| 22:46 | <willix> | I'm working on reputation system as plugin to spmassasin |
| 22:46 | <Julian> | Interesting. Does it use SPF? |
| 22:46 | <willix> | Part 4 will include SPF |
| 22:46 | <Julian> | ...and: does it use other authentication systems, too? |
| 22:47 | <Julian> | like DKIM or so? |
| 22:47 | <SDGathman> | I'm running the GOSSiP reputation system on pymilter. It uses SPF to track domains instead of IPs. |
| 22:47 | <willix> | Way in the future. |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | I think we could set up a collection of SPF-related projects like yours on the website. |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | Reputation is the next big thing, I guess. |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | Ok, no further reports for now I assume. |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | Let's move on. |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | 2. Try to agree on a basic common agenda for the next few months. |
| 22:49 | <willix> | Part 1 is reputation database of incoming ips, Part 2 is reputation of ip blocks, Part 3 is reputation of mail servers by name (whenever authenticated by EHLO SPF or when EHLO name fully matched to incoming ip address by dns), Part4 is reputation of domains |
| 22:49 | <Julian> | We probably won't have the time to discuss agenda item #2 at length right now, so do we want to do that on the council mailing list? |
| 22:49 | <willix> | I'll make a call for volunteers later next week and describe it more then |
| 22:50 | <SDGathman> | I have been thinking about documentation problem areas. |
| 22:50 | <Julian> | (willix: Sounds interesting. We need to research reputation.) |
| 22:50 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Please explain. |
| 22:50 | <SDGathman> | E.g. common mistakes recipient make when checking SPF |
| 22:51 | <Julian> | A BCP document of sorts? |
| 22:51 | <Julian> | Or more of a FAQ? |
| 22:51 | <SDGathman> | Yes. |
| 22:51 | <Julian> | Koen has been working on the FAQ on the new website. |
| 22:51 | <SDGathman> | Not so much a FAQ, because the people making the mistakes don't know they have a question. |
| 22:51 | <willix> | General FAQ on SPF is actually needed too |
| 22:52 | <SDGathman> | More of a "don't try to check SPF until you are sure you aren't doing any of these dumb things". |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | Koen has been working on the FAQ on the new website. With a bit more work, it can replace the FAQ on the old website soon, I think. |
| 22:52 | <willix> | I think 2 years ago somebody had this page (not on pobox) |
| 22:59 | <shew> | 3. Website-todo |
| 22:59 | <shew> | Were there other specific items so far? |
| 23:00 | <SDGathman> | Implementation errors harm the reputation of SPF. Many of the FUD arguments amount to "when people implement it wrong, legit mail gets blocked". |
| 23:00 | <willix> | Unfortunetly I don't. So this means it'd be on next council agenda |
| 23:00 | <Julian> | willix: I am proposing that we continue collecting items on spf-council. |
| 23:00 | <Julian> | (the mailing list, that is) |
| 23:01 | <Julian> | shew: There are quote a few. I think it will be important to create a good test suite. Wayne can probably shepherd that. |
| 23:01 | <Julian> | (or do it himself, even) |
| 23:01 | <Julian> | Also we should start working on SPFv2.1/v3. |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | Anyway, let's compile that list on the spf-council list, ok? |
| 23:02 | <shew> | Julian: Do you have a suggestion for a URL on new.openspf.org, to list these suggestions? (Either website-oriented or general todo?) |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | General todo: I'd suggest creating a "Project Agenda" page. |
| 23:03 | <Julian> | Website todo: "Website Todo" page or something. |
| 23:04 | <Julian> | I actually proposed to set up a project agenda last year already, unfortunately I haven't found the time to do it, and nobody else did it either. |
| 23:04 | <shew> | The reason to bring this up is that one of us could go on and create either page right now. |
| 23:04 | <Julian> | True. Do you want to take on the job, shew? |
| 23:04 | <shew> | I'll go on and put up a "Project Agenda" one, including the website stuff inside. |
| 23:05 | <shew> | Breaking it out later. |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | Ok, great! |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | So, any other meta issues with regard to "2. Try to agree on a basic common agenda for the next few months"? |
| 23:06 | <willix> | this is still open item basicly |
| 23:06 | <Julian> | What do you mean? |
| 23:07 | <willix> | And I do think for good discussion of it we need all 5 of us |
| 23:07 | <willix> | The actual common agenda is open item |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | Yes, agreed. |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | That's why I asked for _meta_ issues. |
| 23:08 | <shew> | I think updating that moving new.openspf.org to the main site is one of the more important near-term tasks, apart from appeal-related things. |
| 23:08 | <Julian> | Such as, _how_ to we compile that common agenda? |
| 23:08 | <Julian> | Any further comments before we move on to item #3? |
| 23:09 | <Julian> | If so, type ... quickly (hi Wayne!). |
| 23:09 | <shew> | http://new.openspf.org/auth/Project_Agenda |
| 23:09 | <shew> | http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda |
| 23:10 | <shew> | Just the basics there, just to get things started. |
| 23:10 | <Julian> | I propose that you maintain two lists, one where the items are already prioritized (#-style list), and one where they aren't (*-style list). |
| 23:11 | <Julian> | The reason being that we need to _agree_ on a priority order. |
| 23:11 | <Julian> | Ok. Any further comments before we move on to item #3? If so, type ... quickly. |
| 23:12 | <shew> | Thinking.. |
| 23:12 | <shew> | I am suggesting that folks add to this list themselves.. |
| 23:12 | <Julian> | To the unordered (*-style) one, that is. |
| 23:12 | <shew> | I was not suggesting that the website be used to argue for an ordered list. |
| 23:13 | <shew> | (changing to * style) |
| 23:13 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 23:13 | <shew> | My main comment though here is that I think moving to the new.openspf.org site is very important, |
| 23:13 | <shew> | if we don't end up actually setting a date to the turnover, then we won't actually do it for at least 6 months.. |
| 23:14 | <Julian> | So, if anyone has ideas what the project needs to do next, please feel free to add it to <http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda>. |
| 23:14 | <shew> | So I would suggest adding making-a-date to the next meeting agenda. |
| 23:14 | <Julian> | shew: True, but switching the site requires workforce, and this is a scarce resource. |
| 23:15 | <Julian> | Agenda item request noted. |
| 23:15 | <shew> | Thanks. Then I'm done for #1,#2. |
| 23:15 | <Julian> | Then let's move on. |
| 23:15 | <Julian> | 3. Announcing the election of the new council and its common agenda (to spf-announce/as a press release)? |
| 23:15 | <willix> | I'll try to work on draft text tomorrow or Monday |
| 23:16 | <Julian> | Obviously we cannot announce our common agenda yet. But we could announce the election outcome through spf-announce or in a PR, or both. Do we want to do that before we've set an agenda? |
| 23:16 | <shew> | Cool. |
| 23:16 | <willix> | I think going beyond spf-announce is not really necessary |
| 23:16 | <Julian> | Ok. Do we want to announce to spf-announce in the first place? |
| 23:16 | <Julian> | Wayne would probably advise against it. |
| 23:17 | <willix> | Why? |
| 23:17 | <willix> | What is so bad about announcing outcome of elections on spf-announce? |
| 23:17 | <Julian> | Wayne always preferred to send only _material_ news to spf-announce, not organizational ones, because no one was interested in the latter according to him. He could be right. |
| 23:18 | <Julian> | Personally, I'm not sure. |
| 23:18 | <willix> | I disagree. Elections happen once/year and I think this is important enough to announce |
| 23:18 | <Julian> | Yeah, we did announce the election when it was about to start, after all. |
| 23:19 | <shew> | I also disagree. I would suggest an announcement for the election results and an announcement for the appeal. |
| 23:19 | <SDGathman> | It is material news that there is still an official body representing the community. Don't need to go into details about bylaws and such. |
| 23:19 | <Julian> | But we also have to note that only 35 people participated in the election, while >4k are subscribed to spf-announce. |
| 23:20 | <Julian> | Anyway, I think we should wait until we have agreed on a basic common agenda, and then include that in the announcement of the election outcome. That way, the announcement has more substance. |
| 23:21 | <shew> | Okay. I don't feel strongy on this point--I'm fine with waiting. |
| 23:21 | <shew> | strongly |
| 23:21 | <willix> | I'll prepare text anyway and we can decide then |
| 23:22 | <Julian> | Ok. Any further comments on this item? |
| 23:22 | <Julian> | If so, type ... quickly. |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | Alright, next item: |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 4. Announcing the IAB appeal (to spf-announce/as a press release)? |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | Do we want to announce that we appealed to the IAB? |
| 23:23 | <willix> | I'm actually not sure that announcing IAB appeal is really necessary |
| 23:24 | <SDGathman> | I would like to announce on groklaw.net as an OT under the latest ODF article. Any objections? |
| 23:24 | <Julian> | Not me. |
| 23:25 | <shew> | None here. |
| 23:25 | <Julian> | Personally, I think we should wait for the official IAB response and then see if an announcement is warranted. |
| 23:25 | <willix> | Point to IAB page - its good one |
| 23:25 | <willix> | Yes, that is what I think as well. |
| 23:26 | <Julian> | BTW, I added a news item about the IAB appeal to http://new.openspf.org and http://new.openspf.org/News today. |
| 23:26 | <SDGathman> | I'll post my comment to spf-council before submitting. |
| 23:26 | <Julian> | SDGathman: k |
| 23:26 | <willix> | There would need to be somekind of announcements anyway - if IAB appeal is uncessfull, the SPF draft will be published as RFC |
| 23:26 | <willix> | If it is successfull it maybe delayed a little (maybe not) and this needs to be explained |
| 23:27 | <Julian> | True. Having an RFC number would definitely be worth an announcement! |
| 23:27 | <Julian> | Any further comments on "4. Announcing the IAB appeal (to spf-announce/as a press release)?"? |
| 23:28 | <shew> | I would prefer an announcement on spf-announce about the appeal. |
| 23:28 | <Julian> | shew: At this time? |
| 23:28 | <shew> | I would think so. It is a newsworthy item, and it really was a fairly big decision to make. |
| 23:29 | <Julian> | An announcement at this time could backfire if the appeal gets rejected. |
| 23:29 | <Julian> | (just an idea) |
| 23:29 | <shew> | If an announcement is made to spf-announce, it would have to mention the new elections though, which gets into your sticky little-of-substance issue of posting spurious annoucnements. |
| 23:29 | <shew> | Do you think it could lead to the appeal being more likely to be rejected? |
| 23:30 | <Julian> | Yeah. But we could always announce the IAB appeal later, after we announced the election outcome and common agenda (or even in the same message). |
| 23:30 | <SDGathman> | If the appeal has not been officially accepted yet, should I hold off on groklaw? |
| 23:30 | <shew> | It's been officially accepted. |
| 23:31 | <shew> | I'd lean toward an annoucement, but I'm fine either way really. |
| 23:31 | <shew> | No complaints if you don't want to announce. |
| 23:31 | <SDGathman> | Ok, what is the opposite of "rejected"? |
| 23:31 | <shew> | you==consensus. |
| 23:32 | <Julian> | SDGathman: "allowed"? |
| 23:32 | <Julian> | "decided in favor of"? |
| 23:32 | <SDGathman> | So, the appeal has been accepted, but the "court" hasn't agreed to hear the case yet? |
| 23:32 | <shew> | Side note: I've added the Project Agenda ( http://new.openspf.org/auth/Project_Agenda ) to the sitemap, with a suggestion that "Those who have write access to this page should feel free to add items to the above list." |
| 23:33 | <Julian> | shew: Uh, be careful. I think only council members should add to that list. As such, I'd remove that note. |
| 23:33 | <shew> | I would like to discuss that if I may. (I don't want to annoy being out-of-order though.) |
| 23:34 | <Julian> | There are a few non-council and non-webmaster (formally) people who do have write access. |
| 23:34 | <Julian> | shew: Go ahead. |
| 23:35 | <Julian> | Typing? Type ... to let the others know. |
| 23:36 | <shew> | For a list of general-todo, just general tasks-to-be-done, I would think that anyone who has write access should be able to figure what things need to be done. In the same way that someone with write access might edit a FAQ even though they're not on the council, someone with write access should (IMHO) be able to add in that we need a faq item to discuss X, without council approval. However, a section for a decided-upon agenda shou |
| 23:36 | <shew> | ld not be edited by non-council folks, imho. (There is no such section at the moment for a decided-upon agenda--just the generic todos.) |
| 23:36 | <shew> | (sorry) |
| 23:37 | <Julian> | Sounds reasonable. Let's create an (empty, for now) section for the decided-upon agenda later, ok? |
| 23:37 | <willix> | ok |
| 23:37 | <shew> | I actually had it on the page, and only removed it because it looked silly being empty for the moment. :-) |
| 23:38 | <shew> | So I can add it back in empty, or we can added it filled-in once we decide on agenda priorities.. |
| 23:38 | <shew> | (I didn't mean rudeness by "silly" btw.) |
| 23:39 | <Julian> | I'm all for creating structure, even if it's just a prototype. That's why I type code in a breadth-first manner ("if () { }", then fill in the () and {} parts, etc.). ;-) |
| 23:39 | <shew> | I will add it in then. |
| 23:39 | <shew> | Thank you for the discussion-time. |
| 23:40 | <Julian> | Alright, I think there's nothing left to discuss for "4. Announcing the IAB appeal (to spf-announce/as a press release)?". Type ... quickly if you think otherwise. |
| 23:41 | <SDGathman> | Did we decide to annouce or not? |
| 23:41 | <shew> | (I prefer an announcement, but I'm fine either way--I will not complain if it's delayed.) |
| 23:41 | <Julian> | I think we did not decide whether to announce or not. No one made a motion to the effect of announcing the appeal at this time, either. |
| 23:42 | <SDGathman> | Should I comment on groklaw? |
| 23:42 | <Julian> | Anyone can make a motion at any time. |
| 23:42 | <SDGathman> | Or will that adversly affect the appeal? |
| 23:42 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Do you want council approval on that? |
| 23:42 | <Julian> | SDGathman: I don't think it will adversely affect the appeal if you don't phrase it without care. |
| 23:43 | <SDGathman> | Yes, because I am not astute on these political consequences. |
| 23:43 | <willix> | Go ahead and comment, you don't official announcement from SPF about it. Just point to IAB page and let people read from there |
| 23:43 | <Julian> | Like "hey people, we appealed to the IAB and we really hope they will intervene wrt this MS bullshit" or something. That might be counterproductive. ;-) |
| 23:43 | <willix> | If you want to send draft of what you want to put on groaklaw to spf-council or spf-discuss, that would be good |
| 23:44 | <SDGathman> | ok |
| 23:44 | <Julian> | Exactly, willix. If you want to speak on behalf of the project or council, you need (somewhat) explicit approval. Otherwise, you don't. |
| 23:45 | <Julian> | You can always speak as an individual of course. |
| 23:45 | <Julian> | (but in that case it might be good to make that clear) |
| 23:46 | <Julian> | shew: So, do you want to make a motion to announce the appeal now (or at some other specific time)? |
| 23:47 | <shew> | Quite honestly I'm fine either way. I don't care to sway things in either direction. |
| 23:47 | <Julian> | I think we should wait at least until we can announce the council election and common agenda. |
| 23:47 | <shew> | I lean toward announcement but that's about it. I'm content to let things lay for the moment. |
| 23:48 | <Julian> | Ok, so can we conclude item "4. Announcing the IAB appeal (to spf-announce/as a press release)?" then? |
| 23:48 | <SDGathman> | yes |
| 23:49 | <shew> | Yes. |
| 23:49 | <Julian> | Fine. This was the last agenda item. Does anyone have any other important item to discuss? |
| 23:50 | <shew> | None here. |
| 23:50 | <Julian> | Doesn't seem to be the case. |
| 23:50 | <Julian> | Ok, motion: adjourn the meeting. |
| 23:51 | <willix> | seconded |
| 23:51 | <Julian> | Votes? |
| 23:51 | <SDGathman> | 18:51u yes |
| 23:51 | <willix> | 18:51u: yes |
| 23:51 | <shew> | 18:51u yes |
| 23:51 | <Julian> | It's 23:51 UTC. ;-) |
| 23:51 | <Julian> | 2351u: yes |
| 23:51 | <shew> | 23:51u yes |
| 23:51 | <shew> | :-) |
| 23:51 | <Julian> | I take that as an unanimous yes. |
| 23:52 | <willix> | 2351u: yes |
| 23:52 | <SDGathman> | 23:51U YES |
| 23:52 | <Julian> | So ordered. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks, gentlemen |
| 23:52 | <Julian> | ! |
| 23:53 | <willix> | \q |