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/2006/05/20_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)
SDGathmanStuart Gathman
shewMark Shewmaker
willixWilliam Leibzon
 
freesideMeng Weng Wong
gconnorGreg Connor
grumpyWayne Schlitt

--- Sun May 14 11:51:36 UTC 2006 ---
11:51<Julian>shew: ping
15:01<Julian>freeside: Can you give me access to the raw SPF mailing list archives (e.g. as mbox.gz)? I'd like to set up nicer, searchable archives on earbone.schlitt.net.
--- Sat May 20 15:59:35 UTC 2006 ---
15:59<shew>Hello.
16:00<MarkK>Hello
16:00<Julian>hi shew, very good to "see" you here!
16:00<Julian>MarkK: And you!
16:00<Julian>MarkK: Where have you been? :-)
16:00<shew>Thanks. Good to see you and everyone else here too.
16:01<Julian>Let's wait a few more minutes, I hope William shows up, too.
16:05<MarkK>Good question; the answer is too silly for words; I've been inadvertenly (though stupidly) marking messages from the council as spam. The fault is entirely mine. It's only today that I found an entire stored mbox of the council.
16:06<MarkK>It now seems I have several dozens emails to catch up on, and apparently missed two meetings
16:09<MarkK>are we still on for tonight?
16:09<Julian>MarkK: Yeah. I was going to call you by phone, but now that has become unnecessary. :)
16:10<MarkK>It is quite embarrassing, actually
16:10<MarkK>And the council has my profound apologies
16:11<Julian>Well, shit happens.
16:11<shew>(I understand. Simple errors like that always make for the most embarrasing blind spots.)
16:12<MarkK>I thought things were just very quiet. :)
16:12<Julian>I'm very happy that you're back in action anyway.
16:12<Julian>I guess I'll send William a message to his pager address.
16:12<MarkK>but not so quiet after all, it seems; quite a bit of activity, actuallu
16:13<SDGathman>So what happened to the phone calls?
16:14<Julian>What phone calls?
16:14<SDGathman>When we tried to call Mark
16:14<Julian>Did we actually try? As I said, I was planning to call him today, but now that he's here...
16:14<MarkK>I hope you guys made quorum (it seems you did, though, far as I can tell)
16:14<SDGathman>Previous meetings. I called him.
16:15<shew>I had called Wayne and left a vm. I had never called MarkK.
16:15<Julian>MarkK: Yeah, we were lucky and made quorum every time.
16:15<SDGathman>Oh right. Sorry.
16:15<SDGathman>Tried to call Wayne about RFC changes.
16:15<Julian>Wayne has showed up again, too, by now.
16:15<MarkK>Man, this is so stupid (on my end)
16:16<Julian>I sent William a pager message. I hope he shows up soon.
16:16*Julian points at the $toptic.
16:17*Julian points at the $topic.
16:18<Julian>Any additions to the agenda?
16:24<Julian>Ok, let's start in 2min (16:25).
16:24*Julian tries to recall what's there to report.
16:26<Julian>Alright.
16:26<Julian>1. Reports.
16:26<Julian>Oh, first, I call the meeting to order.
16:26<Julian>Now, reports.
16:27<Julian>I'm not sure there's much to report. The announcement has gone out: http://archives.listbox.com/736/200605/0001.html
16:28<Julian>Work on the new website has continued. The new site's contact form <http://new.openspf.org/Contact> has replaced the one from the old website, and it now has a topic selector. Messages are dispatched either to the volunteer support team or spf-webmasters or spf-council, depending on the topic chosen.
16:28<shew>As for myself, I have been very busy the last couple weeks, and I have not had a chance to do any of the website edits or website work that I have committed to. It's still on my To-do list though, and I'll have more time after the weekend.
16:29<Julian>More reports?
16:30<Julian>SDGathman: Any news on the test suite?
16:30<SDGathman>No.
16:30<SDGathman>I have posted a request for help yet.
16:30<SDGathman>I was happy to get my articles done.
16:31<SDGathman>have not posted.
16:31<Julian>SDGathman: Can we talk a few minutes about it later, after the meeting?
16:31<SDGathman>ok
16:31<Julian>Ok, I assume no more report-worthy stuff...
16:31<Julian>2. Press release
16:32<Julian>Now that the news announcement has gone out, do we want to send out a shorter, more directed press release to various media and news sites?
16:33<Julian>Yes? No?
16:33<Julian>What are your thoughts?
16:34<SDGathman>I guess it might help with the SID vs SPF confusion.
16:35<shew>I would say yes, though that one should wait for a clearer SPFvSID page.
16:36<Julian>MarkK: What do you think?
16:36<Julian>For that matter, what do our advisors think? freeside? grumpy?
16:37<Julian>Not good.
16:41<MarkK>Darn; computer froze
16:41<Julian>MarkK: Welcome back.
16:42<Julian>MarkK: What's the last you read?
16:42<MarkK>You asked me about what to do with regard to the SPFvsSID page
16:42<Julian>Huh?
16:43<Julian><Julian> Now that the news announcement has gone out, do we want to send out a shorter, more directed press release to various media and news sites?
16:43<Julian>You mean that?
16:44<MarkK>To be precise, I was agreeing with shew: [18:35] <shew> I would say yes, though that one should wait for a clearer SPFvSID page.
16:45<Julian>Ok. So I guess we should make plans on how to improve the SPF vs S-ID page <http://new.openspf.org/SPF_vs_Sender_ID>.
16:45<MarkK>yes; apparently the issue keeps confusing ppl
16:46<Julian>In short terms, what would any of you improve on that page?
16:46<Julian>each of you, that is...
16:46<shew>I can (finally) start improving on it after Monday, by making a draft page and making edits on that.
16:47<SDGathman>Who was confused?
16:47<shew>But..it's too complex. If you read it from the point of view of someone who's introduced to spf and senderID for the first time, it has too much info. Most of the changes I would want to do would be formatting-type changes, such as putting information about what "MAIL FROM" and "PRA" means in sidebars.
16:47<Julian>We should try to agree on the main points first, or someone will "improve it", and then someone else won't like it and "improve" it to _his_ liking, ad nauseum.
16:48<SDGathman>I wanted to put some parts in side bars myself.
16:48<shew>(I agree. I would only change things onto a draft page for others to see, and not try to pick-fights with other editors.)
16:48<SDGathman>I was looking at the "intro" page to see how it's done in this Wiki.
16:49<Julian>http://new.openspf.org/Introduction?raw=1 :-)
16:49<SDGathman>Side bars are prettier than parenthesis.
16:49<SDGathman>Yes, I saw that. Just haven't applied it.
16:51<Julian>So, let's make a plan. Formatting being of secondary importance, everyone please submit his thoughts about the SPF-vs-SID page to spf-discuss by Tuesday, then we can agree on how to change the page. Anyone opposed?
16:52<shew>It also just happens that on the day that Julian sent out the news announcement, I got two interesting bits of feedback. Firstly, the guy was confused at the old site, not being able to find information on it. Secondly, when I pointed him to the spf-vs-senderID page, (He didn't understand Julian's writing style with footnotes-at-bottom, but loved it once it clicked--he just got hung up on his first click on the old site), he then w
16:52<shew>as all confused with the wording of the page. This happened to be someone who deals with half-manager-half-technical type people all day, and I got feedback from him saying that these folks would be confused by the current page.
16:52<shew>I can agree on that, assumming there are no objections to us also writing out our ideas on a draft page as well.
16:52<SDGathman>It helps to have actual people with little prior knowlege read the article, and then say what they learned (to see if it's acurate) and which parts they couldn't understand at all.
16:53<Julian>Just let's try not to make 5 draft pages and then have to vote on them, ok? ;-)
16:53<Julian>(Oh, we even could do that, actually.)
16:53<Julian>(...but it would mean bureaucracy.)
16:54<shew>A view-of-a-draft-page-suggestion is worth a thousand bureaucratic motions. :-)
16:54<Julian>Well, in any case the SPF-vs-SID page assumes that the reader has read the "Introduction" page first. Perhaps we should mention that on the page.
16:54<shew>Or rather, it could prevent them.
16:54<shew>good idea.
16:54<MarkK>tht would be a good idea julian
16:55<Julian>ScottK: Any thoughts?
16:56<ScottK>I think what is written is a good "if you are interested in the details, click here" page.
16:56<Julian>(Scott /msg'd me if could join in the discussion.)
16:57<ScottK>There needs to be a higher level page. That will be hard to write as it's terribly difficult to be both high level and correct.
16:57<ScottK>"If I had more time, I'd have written something shorter."
16:57<MarkK>yes; it's very well written; but still contains a whole lot of info for someone not, or only indirectly, involved (like executives).
16:57<Julian>Higher level on what topic? SPF vs S-ID, or on SPF in general?
16:58<ScottK>Julian - can't have one without the other. It needs to be self-contained.
16:58<Julian>For that matter, does anyone think the SPF Intro page needs to be "easier"/higher-leveled?
16:59<ScottK>I think someone ought to take a shot at a draft high level management page and then once it's drafted, people can inflict it on people who aren't familliar with SPF or the controversy.
16:59<ScottK>Much of the new material I got for the FAQ update (almost all of it) I got someone who was new to SPF to write. I think it helped a lot.
17:00<ScottK>got someone --> got from someone
17:00<Julian>(One person recently asked in a submission to the support team, "What's a DNS?". Is the reference to the Wikipedia "DNS" article not enough?)
17:02<Julian>(Perhaps the link isn't visible clearly enough? Maybe we should underline links always, not just when hovered.)
17:02<MarkK>Well, in our defense, if a person doesn't know what DNS is, they will (or rather should) not be dealing with SPF, or SID, for that matter. :)
17:03<ScottK>It's a question of time. That's a very LONG detailed discussion. The high level stuff needs to be for the person who has 10 minutes to devote to the issue with lots of references.
17:03<ScottK>MarKK - You'd be surprised who writes in.
17:03<Julian>Well, I'd like to keep redundancy down. If we can make the "Intro" page basic/high-leveled enough to be understandable by management types, then that would probably the best solution.
17:04<MarkK>ScottK: I believe it. :)
17:05<Julian>So, would anyone like to change/amend the plan I proposed? We need to discuss on a meta level right now, not so much the details.
17:05<shew>I'm fine with it.
17:05<SDGathman>http://new.openspf.org/auth/Drafts/SPF_vs_Sender_ID-sdg
17:05<Julian>My plan covered only the SPF-vs-SID page, not the intro page.
17:06<SDGathman>Can I make that formatting change to the public page?
17:06<ScottK>SDG: Looks nice.
17:06<Julian>(SDGathman: Thanks. I think the sidebares are heavy blobs of text, though. At the very least they need good headings.)
17:07<ScottK>Do we need a #SPF-webmasters?
17:07<Julian>I doubt it. Stuff can always be discussed on #spf, but if you want, create the channel.
17:07<Julian>Everyone can create all the channels they like.
17:08<shew>Cool. It is better. :-)
17:08<shew>Oh, one more point should be in there.
17:08<shew>That senderID is not the next/current/newer revision.
17:08<Julian>Look, we should not be discussing the page in detail right now.
17:09<shew>The guy I was talking with was under the impression that folks should be changing to "version 2". So that has to be mentioned.
17:09<shew>(okay.)
17:09<Julian>We can do that on spf-webmasters or spf-discuss.
17:10<SDGathman>NEW! With headers!
17:10<SDGathman>http://new.openspf.org/auth/Drafts/SPF_vs_Sender_ID-sdg
17:10<SDGathman>shew - good point (about "version 2".
17:10<SDGathman>Talk about pernicious FUD.
17:12<Julian>Obviously there is a need for improving and then approving the page from its current public state. However, personally, I'm not willing to edit and "approve" the page right here and now.
17:13<Julian>Can we please agree on a plan on how to proceed, or not make a plan and go on with the next agenda item?
17:13<MarkK>yeah; I like a little time to read it a bit more carefully, too
17:13<Julian>(...on how to proceed with the SPF-vs-SID page...)
17:14<shew>I like you plan julian.
17:15<shew>your plan.
17:15<Julian>It seems everyone prefers a more XP-like approach to editing the page, so I propose another plan:
17:15<shew>(notes-by-tuesday, with any interested person underhandedly writing example drafts beforehand. :-) )
17:15<shew>ok
17:16<Julian>Let's try to XP-edit the page to a good state that everyone can agree with before coming Saturday, ok?
17:17<MarkK>ok
17:17<Julian>Discussions shall be held on spf-webmasters, CC spf-discuss on the introductory message (so interested people can join spf-webmasters).
17:17<Julian>Anyone opposed?
17:17<shew>I am.
17:17<shew>I don't understand how you can xp-edit a page via a mailing list, without people fighting over everything.
17:18<shew>The fighting thing was something you were trying to avoid earlier..
17:18<Julian>What I wanted to avoid was edit wars, right.
17:18<shew>My objection is based on my confusion, not in my thinking it's a bad idea. I will happily join in on edit wars if folks want to do that.
17:19<Julian>*sigh* Do we really need to make a detailed plan for editing one sorrow page?
17:21<shew>No, I just watned to be clear on the fact that minor edit-wars are okay. I wasn't sure if the about-face was intentional.
17:21<shew>(I've had a wierd sleep schedule this past week. Please don't take offense if I might be wording things more abruptly than normal.)
17:23<Julian>"Discuss and agree on the main points that the page should make by Tue, then have someone (re)write the page to make these points by Thu, then have everyone submit final change requests / suggestions by Sat, then have the editor adopt what he thinks is good by Mon, then let the council approve the page on Monday"?
17:24<SDGathman>Am I still the editor?
17:24<MarkK>sounds like a plan
17:24<Julian>I have no idea.
17:24<shew>That's way too extreme for me.
17:24<Julian>Guys, you're free to propose your own plans!
17:24<shew>I would simply suggest making the points by tuesday, and filtering them through Stuart, for him to implement as he wants.
17:25<shew>With us writing suggested drafts along the way if we want. No need for voting or anything like that.
17:25<shew>Handing text to editor, and editor agreeing or not. Much simpler.
17:25<SDGathman>Yes, it is important to have a single editor to integrate all the points.
17:25<ScottK>I'd suggest you leave the current page aside for a bit, drafting the high level page (perhaps points to Stuart) and then once the high level page is done, you'll know what (if anything) needs to be changed on the detailed page.
17:25<Julian>"high level page" on _what_? SPF in general, or SPF vs SID?
17:26<Julian>(Sorry if I'm confused.)
17:27<shew>(I was referring to spf-v-sid, myself, and hadn't thought about the larger picture.)
17:28<ScottK>Focus would be SPF vs SID, but it has to say enough about SPF to be self contained.
17:28<ScottK>I can probably draft something, but not by Tuesday.
17:28<Julian>Does anyone NOT think that we need exactly one Intro page and exactly one SPF-vs-SID page? I.e. does anyone think we need an extra, even higher-level page?
17:29<Julian>I think we should try not to explain anything on the SPF-vs-SID page that's already explained on the intro page.
17:29<ScottK>I think the current SPF vs SID page is technically good, but way to much for someone new to absorb.
17:29<Julian>We can tell readers to read the intro page first if they don't know what SPF is.
17:29<ScottK>See my 12:56:21, that's where I'm still at.
17:30<Julian>We can even improve the intro page to fit that scheme. But we should try to avoid redundancy.
17:30<ScottK>Agree that redundancy should be minimized, but you've got to have a page that if it's all they ever read they understand at least a minimal amount in a coherent, but high level way.
17:31<ScottK>I'll be quiet now.
17:31<MarkK>these meetings have a way of taking much longer than anticipated. :)
17:31<Julian>If some non-techie can't be bothered to read the intro page before the SPF-vs-SID page, then I'd say tough luck.
17:32<Julian>MarkK: Yeah, I don't get why it needs to be that way, though...
17:32<shew>This isn't like database design where you want to only need to change one piece of data in one place; you have to have redundancy in any marketing type material.
17:32<shew>And I don't think we need to make this decision here. The funnel-spf-v-sid page decisions through Stuart decision is enough of a decision for me for this topic.
17:33<Julian>Alright, we're way out of timeframe now. Please let's continue to discuss this matter on spf-webmasters, ok?
17:33<MarkK>Ok; lets decide then that ppl can sub,it changes to the editor, who will then use his discretion to incorporate them or not.
17:33<Julian>Do we want to declare an editor for the page?
17:34<shew>I thought Stuart was..
17:34<MarkK>I though SDGathman already was
17:34<Julian>I wrote the original page, yes.
17:34<Julian>Fine, anyone opposed to Stuart being the editor for the revised page?
17:34<SDGathman>I will go ahead and make the strictly formatting changes public (side bars). THen we can work on the executive version and address additional points like whether SID is "version 2".
17:34<shew>(And this a loose rule-of-thumb. Minor wording edits, no. Major changes, yes. Fights can ensue as appropriate.)
17:35<shew>I'm not opposed.
17:35<shew>Rather I'm okay with it.
17:35<Julian>If you're opposed, say so quickly.
17:35<Julian>Ok, so be it.
17:35<Julian>3. The contact form help team.
17:35<Julian>a. Report from the team.
17:36<Julian>Koen is not here. But Scott is.
17:36<Julian>ScottK, would you like to give us a short report of the most noteworthy things about the support team's work?
17:37<ScottK>OK
17:37<Julian>Like, any structural problems you have encountered and that should be addressed one way or another?
17:37<Julian>etc.?
17:37<Julian>Whatever you think is most important for the council to be aware of.
17:37<ScottK>In my view there are two distinct, but related support efforts:
17:37<ScottK>spf-help and the web site submissions to the RT that Koen runs
17:38<ScottK>spf-help seems to be going pretty smoothly. People who can manage to subscribe to a mailing list tend to be somewhat technically versed and are able to digest answers pretty well.
17:39<ScottK>The angry ones submit via the web site.
17:39<Julian>RT = Request Tracker <http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/> for those who're wondering.
17:39<ScottK>The level of responsiveness and support people get via the RT has varied considerably based on the number of volunteers.
17:40<Julian>hi willix. We're at $topic, item
17:40<Julian>hi willix. We're at $topic, item #3a. Scott is reporting from the support team.
17:40<ScottK>There have been times where I was just about the only one answering questions there, but then I've been busy lately and haven't been on much.
17:40<ScottK>Stuart probably has a better idea of the current state of things on the RT than I do.
17:41<ScottK>In general, I think that things are going well in the support arena.
17:41<Julian>SDGathman: Please add things if you feel the need.
17:41<SDGathman>RT server is slow and cumbersome.
17:41<ScottK>I would like to suggest to the Council that they specifically commend Koen for providing the RT. We'd have been dead without it and I know it's taken a fair amount of effort for him to deal with.
17:42<Julian>ScottK: About how many active volunteers are you right now, and how has that number changed over time (roughly)?
17:42<SDGathman>But it works.
17:42<MarkK>I agree with the commendation, Scott
17:43<Julian>Re the RT: I have been talking to Wayne. We could set up another RT for all sorts of project issues on earbone.openspf.org.
17:43<Julian>(just a side note)
17:43<ScottK>Looks like Alex van den Bogaerdt is the main one at the moment.
17:43<willix>don't overload your webserver, rt can screw things up
17:44<ScottK>I would suggest that as long as Koen is willing to provide it, you let him.
17:44<Julian>willix: I know, it's very memory hungry above all things.
17:44<ScottK>It has been fast or slow at different times and he's even moved it to a new server when necessary.
17:44<Julian>ScottK: I didn't necessarily mean for the support team, but for other project issues, like the test suite and software development, etc.
17:45<ScottK>I understand it takes some maintenance work to keep it from getting incredibly slow and Koen's been getting ramped up on how to deal with it. Don't mess with what's working.
17:45<ScottK>OK
17:45<Julian>ScottK: Ok, anything else you think we should know (and Stuart won't tell us *g*)?
17:45<ScottK>The spf web site is slow enough already. I wouldn't put a lot of other stuff on that box.
17:46<willix>If you ran into serious issues, I can provide you with a server for RT. But if it works right now, keep it.
17:46<ScottK>I think that you just solved one issue by giving people a choice about where to direct their submissions.
17:46<SDGathman>A big task is deleting the spam that gets sent to the request queue.
17:46<Julian>I talked with Koen about the spam problem.
17:46<ScottK>SDG -> Yes and I think Koen has a plan to deal with that.
17:47<ScottK>One of the biggest problems is generic to tech support and that's keeping your patience with people.
17:47<Julian>The website contact form sends messages with one or two special headers that can be used for filtering spam, in combination with looking for RT's ticket ID tags in the subject.
17:48<ScottK>Because of that, I do think that new volunteers are needed because people get burned out.
17:48<Julian>ScottK: Do you think the team urgently needs more volunteers?
17:48<Julian>Ok, that answers my question. :)
17:48<Julian>So I think we're at "b. Discussion" now.
17:48<Julian>Let's just combine that with "c. Present the team effort on the website?".
17:48<ScottK>I haven't been on the RT enough lately to have an opinion. More is always better. I don't know enough to say if it's urgent or not. I
17:48<SDGathman>A good many request are from people angry because "SPF is blocking mail I send".
17:49<ScottK>Yes, as I said, that's where the angry ones go.
17:49<Julian>I can see that.
17:49<ScottK>If one is polite and patient, in my experience, most people can be turned into supporters
17:50<Julian>A rewrite of the "why" page, which is currently still being served by the old website, is still at least a month away. At the very least. But we can always improve the old "why" page.
17:50<ScottK>One of the biggest problems is registrars that publish -all records without input (or in some cases notification) for their customers.
17:50<Julian>Perhaps we should try to explain better on the current "why" page that "WE are not blocking your mail".
17:50<SDGathman>It wouild be good if there was someone to review (perhaps random sample) support conversations - and provide feedback to support workers.
17:50<SDGathman>Positive or negative.
17:51<Julian>I don't think a _random_ sample is a good basis for changing the website.
17:51<MarkK>Yes; SA does the same: its page starts by saying something like: "We did not block your mail!"
17:51<ScottK>If you all are interested, submit a test ticket and look at the auto reply.
17:51<SDGathman>sample of RT reqeuests.
17:52<ScottK>It was updated a month or so ago based on feedback I got (same guy that helped with the FAQ).
17:52<Julian>Ok, let's form a task force that tries to work with the support team to reduce their need to answer the same old questions over and over again. The "why" page and the rest of the website(s) can certainly be improved.
17:53<Julian>MarkK has a flaky connection.
17:54<Julian>I'll post to spf-helper (the support team's website) and invite their most active (now and in the past) supporters to join spf-webmasters and give the webmasters some ideas about how the website should be improved.
17:54<Julian>Is that a good idea?
17:54<ScottK>I think that's great.
17:55<Julian>More opinions?
17:55<willix>go ahead
17:55<ScottK>I think improving the why response is probably one of the most important things.
17:56<willix>You can always point person who asked to FAQ and ask if he has specific questions not answered there.
17:56<willix>Not super polite, but ....
17:56<ScottK>That and if someone has good industry contacts, trying to get registrars to stop publishing -all records for their customers.
17:56<Julian>SDGathman?
17:56<willix>which registrars?
17:56<ScottK>willix: What's not superpolite?
17:57<SDGathman>There are too many FAQs.
17:57<Julian>ScottK: That's gonna be difficult. We should instead try to write a standard letter template about the "you should not SPF-ize your customers' domains without talking to them" issue instead.
17:57<ScottK>http://www.mydomain.com/ has been the primary problem when I've looked into it.
17:57<SDGathman>For people to see their question answered before getting angry.
17:57<Julian>Then we can send that letter to misbehaving ISPs without too much effort.
17:57<ScottK>Julian: Yes, we need that. That also comes up on spf-help sometimes too.
17:58<SDGathman>I have wished for a convenient way to count how many times each FAQ actually occurs on RT.
17:58<ScottK>If we have a standard letter and a page on the web site...
17:58<willix>Then we need to contact mydomain specifically ane explain. I've some registrar contacts, but not mydomain
17:58<SDGathman>That way, we could move the literally most frequent FAQs to the top.
17:59<Julian>SDGathman: I'm sure Koen can set up a custom property in RT that let's you choose a FAQ or "no FAQ (yet)" when closing tickets.
17:59<SDGathman>Good idea.
17:59<ScottK>When I finished the redo of the FAQ, I added a section call "The Basics" which is supposed to catch most of the common newbie type questions.
18:00<ScottK>Others can be added there.
18:00<SDGathman>gmc arrived on #spf
18:00<Julian>gmc: hi
18:01<Julian>gmc: You can now talk. We're at $topic, item 3b.
18:01<Julian>Scott has given us a short report already. Would you like to point out any important issues of the support team to the council yourself?
18:01<ScottK>I just e-mailed the discussion so far to Koen.
18:02<ScottK>I'd suggest giving him a minute to read it.
18:03<gmc>hmm, sorry, just go ahead, my imap seems to be down..
18:03<Julian>http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html
18:03<Julian>Infrastructure is everything.
18:03<Julian>gmc: Start at http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html#20060520T1736
18:04<gmc>i see someone mentioning 'rt is slow and cumbersome' i think that is not the case anymore
18:04<SDGathman>Mymilter now sends DSNs for SPF fail to selected domains. Currently, the message is identical to softfail. But should be customized to address the premature -all issue.
18:06<SDGathman>I could see standard templates being availble to all kinds of email systems for use in explaining SPF problems. Should SPF community try to develop them? Should I post the ones I use so far to the Wiki?
18:06<Julian>SDGathman: Good idea.
18:07<Julian>Either post them as subpages to the FAQ or to a "Letter Template" page.
18:08<gmc><Julian>I'll post to spf-helper (the support team's website) and invite their most active (now and in the past) supporters to join spf-webmasters and give the webmasters some ideas about how the website should be improved. <== i think you have those active persons already on the spf-webmasters
18:08<Julian>gmc: All the better.
18:08<gmc>most active: alex, scott, me
18:09<Julian>s/(the support team's) website/$1 mailing list/ # doh...
18:10<willix>so does support team find current faq satisfactory?
18:10<gmc>i think scott has summed it up pretty well.. most important complaints are about 'why is spf blocking my mail' -> why.html improvement.. and about how to use the wizard, note in this regard alex' text he posted to spf-discuss
18:10<Julian>I was going to commend Alex for his text and ask him if he would like to add it to the SPF website.
18:11<gmc>the faq is satisfactory i think, especially since scott has recently been working with an actual 'customer' to improve it. Both scott & i have had a lot of input on the faq
18:11<ScottK>Switching to the wiki has really helped wrt the FAQ.
18:11<Julian>Ok, there's one more issue within the scope of "3. The contact form help team / b. Discussion / c. Present the team effort on the website?", namely the latter, (c).
18:12<Julian>Scott has mentioned that there is a slight lack of volunteers and that the current team is in danger of burning out sooner or later.
18:12<willix>how many people do you see per day asking "why spf is blocking my mail"?
18:13<gmc>willix: it varies, on average.. about 5 maybe.. sometimes none
18:13<Julian>I think we should present the support team on the website and generally open it up a bit more to the community so we can get more volunteer helpers.
18:13<gmc>we could use more volunteers indeed, alex is taking a lot of tickets at this point, i don't know what would happen if he left
18:14<Julian>That would also give us (the project) a change to commend the team for their immensely valuable work.
18:14<SDGathman>I haven't done my share for a month now.
18:14<ScottK>The key thing for the RT/web site submissions is it needs to be people who have a lot of patience.
18:15<gmc>and know a thing or two about SPF of course, or at least know where to find it.
18:16<ScottK>Yes.
18:16<SDGathman>Just deleting virus/pharm spam would help and not require much.
18:17<Julian>I propose that I write a draft page about the support team and have someone from the team proofread it (so as to spare our volunteers from the work of having to write the page themselves, but still have them have a say about it).
18:17<gmc>SDGathman: that will be solved probably this weekend by some extra checks on incoming mail
18:17<gmc>Julian: i think you need to seperate the spf-help and the rt team, since at least for me those are two different worlds (as scott already mentioned)
18:17<willix>are most of the support requests coming through website or by email?
18:17<Julian>(If we can get just two more volunteers, that would be a significant help, I guess. Right?)
18:18<gmc>spf-help is without obligation, the rt queue is not
18:18<gmc>Julian: correct
18:18<gmc>willix: none should be coming in by email basically
18:18<Julian>gmc: I'm not sure that spf-help and the contact form support team being two different worlds is a good thing.
18:18<gmc>willix: the rt was set up purely to handle the feedback from the webform
18:18<willix>Then it should be easy to filter virus/pharm spam
18:19<willix>unless you have it all coming through website forms as well...
18:19<gmc>willix: it is, and it is on my todo list, and it will be done probably this weekend
18:19<Julian>I agree that a support volunteer should be able to choose if he wants to participate on spf-help or the contact form team (or both), but the barrier between both should be low.
18:19<gmc>i think what i really mean is that on spf-help anyone can jump in and answer questions, that is not the case with the rt
18:20<ScottK>It's two different things as anyone can already join spf-help and post and people do. The RT thing you need to be signed up for.
18:20<ScottK>The RT is not exclusively help, but that's probabyl 90%
18:21<Julian>I think we should invite people to join the RT team even if they can't handle more than a request per day or so. People should be able to jump in when a support request is within their "favorite" field.
18:22<ScottK>One other point that probably ought to be mentioned today... I have listowner rights on spf-help that Meng gave me before there was a council. Although other people have the rights and do admin stuff on spf-help sometimes, I've viewed myself as that primary administrator of that list. From my perspective, this is just FYI. I'm not asking that it be changed.
18:22<gmc>ps: not many people seem to know that it is possible to get copies of incoming requests from the rt in your own mailbox
18:22<Julian>I.e. lower the entry barrier for the RT team a bit.
18:23<gmc>sure, i don't think there is an entry barrier btw, it is just that no-one knows about it and we haven't really been advertising for help
18:23<Julian>Exactly, and that is a HUGE entry barrier.
18:23<willix>You usually set it up rt to cc emails to role account
18:23<willix>and then having first available support person take over the request and further emails go to his account
18:24<gmc>Julian: so yes, let us make a page on the spf website, introducing ourselves (maybe with a short bio) and telling people that want to join to report to spf-helpers or something (or submit a request to the rt :)
18:24<Julian>Would someone from the contact form support team be willing to send a message to spf-discuss asking for volunteers and pointing to the soon-to-be-written page for details?
18:24<Julian>Er, what gmc said. :-)
18:24<gmc>i'll put an email on spf-discuss
18:25<Julian>gmc: Can you wait until tomorrow? I can write that page and run it by you before that.
18:25<gmc>ack
18:25<Julian>Very good. :-)
18:25<gmc>i was thinking, maybe we (the rt team) should do a status report on spf-discuss every once in a while..
18:26<willix>Also if I remember right its possible to send summary/digest of requests on daily basis. Possibly this can go to spf-help for people to notice.
18:26<ScottK>willix: Not to spf-help. That would confuse the neophytes.
18:26<gmc>willix: i'm not sure whether making the requests public is what we want.
18:26<ScottK>Actually, I'm pretty sure we don't want to make them public.
18:27<ScottK>I've handled requests on the RT where people explicitly said they wouldn't go to spf-help because it was public.
18:27<willix>These are not replies, just open requests.
18:27<willix>I see
18:27<Julian>I don't think support requests should be mailed to spf-help, either. People use the contact form expecting that it is private correspondence.
18:28<gmc>(sidenote: i have been wondering sometimes whether i was helping an actual spammer with their spf records)
18:28<Julian>We don't care about spammers (yet). We care about forgers. ;-)
18:29<Julian>Ok, perhaps we'll get that reputation thing rolling at some point in the future.
18:29<Julian>Another issue.
18:29<Julian>Does the support team get non-support questions often? Like media inquiries, website suggestions, etc.?
18:30<ScottK>I haven't seen a media inquiry.
18:30<Julian>Or more exactly, about how many such non-support tickets do you get?
18:30<gmc>media inquiries, none, website suggestions: regularly
18:30<Julian>The website suggestions should now go directly to spf-webmasters, provided the submitter selects the correct topic.
18:30<ScottK>I asked for spf-webmasters to be set up so I'd have a place to send website suggestions. What you've seen there is what I've gotten since that list was set up.
18:30<gmc>sometimes we get people that want to actually discuss the spf protocol, we usuallyt send them off to spf-discuss because that would be more fruitful
18:31<Julian>Interesting.
18:31<gmc>we also get people that confuse us for the aol or microsoft helpdesk and stuff like that
18:31<Julian>I'm not sure how those should be handled other than writing clearly above the form "If you want to discuss the design of SPF, please don't use the contact form, join spf-discuss instead".
18:32<Julian>s/those/those requests that want to discuss the SPF protocol/
18:32<gmc>ah well, i don't need we need to make provisions for that, we don't see that many of them
18:32<Julian>Ok.
18:33<gmc>i think basically the form is doing well as is right now, especially now that website suggestions are sent directly to webmasters
18:33<gmc>the only thing (as said) is the why.html, we might want to put some effort in making that psychologically correct for end-users
18:33<ScottK>+1
18:33<Julian>One last question: what do you think about making the spf-helper mailing list archives public (perhaps after removing some sensitive postings from the past)? It might go a long way toward attracting more volunteers.
18:34<ScottK>I'd say no.
18:34<Julian>In any case I think we need to make the support team's modus operandi clear to any new volunteer candidates.
18:35<gmc>not sure about that one, it is nice to have a place to be 'amongst ourselves', not that we have secrets or anything but we do discuss some tickets there of which the requestor might not like it being public
18:35<gmc>or of which it would be embarrasing for us :)
18:35<ScottK>We need a venue to discuss dealing with support issues/people and it needs to be private. We can certainly discuss the existence of the list, but I'd be strongly against making the archive public.
18:35<ScottK>It's an extraordinarily low volume list anyway.
18:36<Julian>I think you (the team) need to develop an idea about how to deal with sensitive information. I mean, everyone could join your team and bust you.
18:36<gmc>(sidenote: if the spf project needs other queues besides the support queue, i'd be happy to add them)
18:37<Julian>gmc: Good to know, thanks for the offer.
18:37<gmc>good point, maybe we do need to set up some sort of policy for our team..
18:37<gmc>a short list of guidelines
18:37<Julian>Alright. Does anyone want to ask the contact form support team anything else? Anything else to discuss?
18:38<Julian>I have _one_ more question, I think.
18:39<Julian>Has any requestor ever offered statistics or similar feedback about his experiences with SPF?
18:39<ScottK>My 14:22:14 - just want to make sure people saw that and have discussed as necessary.
18:39<gmc>not that i know of
18:39<Julian>As you might have noticed, our recent announcement was asking for such feedback, and we might get some (now directly to spf-council, presumably) in the future.
18:40<ScottK>I don't recall any either. The community quote I put up the other day I got in direct correspondence.
18:41<Julian>(ScottK: Re 14:22: I don't know what time that is in UTC. Do you mean you pointing out your spf-help list admin status?)
18:42<ScottK>Sorry. Forgot about time zones. Yes. That one.
18:42<ScottK>I guess that would be 18:22
18:43<Julian>I noticed it.
18:43<Julian>I don't think there's any need to change the list admins. Perhaps we should document them better, however.
18:43<ScottK>OK. I no one has any comment, I'd suggest you move on.
18:43<Julian>Alright, if you have anything else to ask our guests from the contact form support team, please type "..." quickly.
18:44<willix>I'd like to see some statistics of requests being made public if not actual request themselve
18:44<Julian>(All we have now is http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/13 )
18:44<willix>Perhaps that would be monthly statistics
18:45<Julian>willix: I don't think we can make the requests themselves public. About statistics, gmc, would that be feasible somehow?
18:45<gmc>Julian: we can set up a classification scheme, eg 'tech, enduser, sysadmin, web, ...'
18:45<ScottK>willix: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/22978?search_string=rt%20registrar%20;#22978
18:45<gmc>and publish stats about those..
18:45<SDGathman>Don't forget the "FAQ" custom property.
18:45<ScottK>That's all I've got so far.
18:46<SDGathman>Julian suggested making a "FAQ" custom property to track how often each FAQ is actually asked.
18:46<gmc>that sounds reasonable
18:46<Julian>(Someone else requested something to that end. I just made that concrete suggestion.)
18:47<gmc>ok i will implement those fields shortly, and set up a script to mail summaries to spf-discuss once a month
18:47<Julian>Very good.
18:47<Julian>Alright, so the agenda item "3. The contact form help team" is concluded.
18:48<ScottK>Thanks for the invitation.
18:48<gmc>thanks for having us!
18:48<Julian>I thank ScottK and gmc for being here and giving us the report and stuff.
18:49<Julian>I hope we can present the support team on the website and invite and thus attract more volunteers, making the team's lives easier.
18:50<Julian>Motion: Commend the contact form support team for their invaluable work for the project, and have that commendation added to the team's website page.
18:50<willix>seconded
18:50<Julian>Votes?
18:51<Julian>(only from council members, obviously)
18:51<Julian>18:50u: yes
18:51<willix>isn't it 19:51?
18:51<Julian>No.
18:52<willix>18:50u: yes
18:53<Julian>willix: Perhaps daylight saving time has confused you over the timezone? ;-)
18:53<SDGathman>18:50u; yes
18:54<Julian>We've lost MarkK along the way. shew?
18:54<shew>Sorry.
18:55<shew>Was away since the agenda-item-3-concluded.
18:55<shew>reading..
18:55<shew>18:50u: Yes.
18:55<Julian>So be it. Thank you!
18:55<shew>Correction: 18:50u: Yes, Yes, Yes. :-)
18:56<Julian>We're slightly over time right now, I propose to adjourn the remaining items (#4, #5) until the next meeting and have them discussed on spf-webmasters and spf-devel (spf-discuss?), respectively.
18:57<Julian>Any objections? Any important items that are not on the agenda but need to be discussed right now?
18:57<willix>we can adjorn.
18:57<shew>I would ask for a very quick what's-left-to-do brainstorm.
18:58<shew>ie, just a minute or two, to get a feel for what's left.
18:58<Julian>shew: About the website? Or more general?
18:58<shew>Yes.
18:58<shew>Yes: What's left-to-do on the website.
18:58<Julian>Ok.
18:58<willix>I 'd like to discuss with Julian though couple moments on a adding motions as resolutions on website..
18:58<willix>outside of the meeting time but on the list
18:59<willix>Sorry shew - go ahead.
18:59<Julian>Well, we have been progressing by switching individual pages over to the new website (by setting up HTTP redirects).
18:59<Julian>I think _some_ pages of the old website can be dropped entirely, and some incorporated into already existing pages on the new website.
18:59<Julian>Some still need to be transferred ~1:1 to the new site.
19:00<shew>Okay.
19:00<Julian>I don't have an exact list right now. I certainly know that the "why" page needs to be transferred fully, and that's going to be some work.
19:00<shew>That would be a good list to put on the http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda page. :-)
19:00<Julian>Most importantly that depends on Mail::SPF, which, for a large part, depends on the test suite.
19:00<Julian>shew: Right.
19:01<Julian>I think we're 66% done with the new website.
19:01<Julian>(just a very rough estimation)
19:01<shew>Okay.
19:01<willix>We're probably > 66% done as far as I see it
19:02<Julian>As always, I invite everyone to contribute to the effort by posting to spf-webmasters and making good points.
19:02<shew>So then we can agree that as we notice things that need to be moved, they should be put onto the agenda page..
19:02<Julian>Yes, I agree.
19:03<Julian>I have made the website svn repositories private for the webmasters and the council, BTW.
19:03<Julian>(as a security measure, just in case)
19:03<willix>btw - why does "why.html" depend on Mail::SPF? What stops you from using python validator?
19:03<Julian>(See the "Project Infrastructure" page.)
19:04<Julian>willix: Good point. Still I think an implementation should be chosen that passes the test suite.
19:04<SDGathman>Getting started on that now.
19:04<willix>I don't doubt that but I don't think this should ba stop-over for when moving to new site
19:04<willix>Basicly it would be no worth then existing one anyway
19:04<Julian>Both the old and the new website run on Perl, the old one even on mod_perl. I'm working to have the wiki software run on mod_perl, too.
19:05<Julian>Integrating a Python lib is going to be significantly harder than integrating a Perl lib. And I don't think we should use Mail::SPF::Query. It's just too broken.
19:05<willix>you can run python code from perl code... With mod_perl a bit more difficult I guess, but still possible for certain specific pages
19:05<Julian>I know it is not impossible.
19:06<Julian>As I said, you make a valid point.
19:06<willix>anyway, I think this is specific point that is probably not for the council meeting
19:06<Julian>Let's discuss that on spf-webmasters.
19:06<Julian>Right.
19:06<Julian>Motion: Adjourn this meeting.
19:06<shew>19:06u seconded
19:07<willix>19:05u: yes
19:07<Julian>Votes on 19:06u?
19:07<shew>19:06u: Yes
19:07<Julian>19:06u: yes
19:07<SDGathman>19:06u yes
19:07<Julian>So the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen!
19:07<Julian>Now, about the test suite...
19:08<Julian>(willix, can you wait a few more minutes about the resolutions issue?)
19:08<willix>sure
19:09<Julian>SDGathman: What are your plans wrt the test suite? I remember you saying you were going to work with ScottK on pySPF and work on the test suite in the process?
19:10<SDGathman>Yes.
19:10<Julian>I think those who are working on the _official_ test suite should be corresponding over spf-devel (or spf-discuss?).
19:10<SDGathman>First, ask for volunteers on spf-devel.
19:10<SDGathman>SPlit into tasks.
19:10<Julian>Define a strategy.
19:10<Julian>I mean, we should define a strategy on spf-devel.
19:11<Julian>I already have some ideas.
19:11<SDGathman>Yes. One task is to convert the DNS data into a text format.
19:11<SDGathman>I have been converting to python dicts and lists.
19:11<Julian>SDGathman: So, you're going to write an introductory message to spf-devel and spf-discuss (I think that one should be included, but f'up to spf-devel).
19:11<Julian>...right?
19:12<SDGathman>But Perhaps something less python centric might be better for cross platform.
19:12<Julian>YAML?
19:12<Julian>Or a custom-defined simple text format.
19:12<SDGathman>Exactly. (Bind format too hard to parse.)
19:12<Julian>It should be easily parsable by most languages.
19:13<SDGathman>Python format easy to parse and convert to anything if you have python.
19:13<Julian>Heh...
19:13<willix>but bind format is standard and supported by majority of other dns servers
19:13<willix>"standard" - not officially of course
19:13<Julian>The test suite isn't supposed to be read by DNS servers.
19:13<Julian>The test suite must be usable without a DNS server.
19:14<willix>the point is that there are modules for both python and perl and c libraries to deal with zone files
19:14<willix>zone files in bind format
19:14<SDGathman>What is the python module to deal with zone file?
19:14<willix>I can check but I ran across it a year ago
19:15<SDGathman>I believe it was in one of the larger DNS libraries.
19:15<SDGathman>Either twisted dns or dnspython.
19:15<Julian>willix: I'm not sure we should require SPF implementations to depend on a lib/module that can parse the BIND format just for testing. The idea is for every SPF implementation to include the original test suite verbatim (as a simple-format text file) and test itself based on that.
19:16<SDGathman>A big depency for a test suite for pydns.
19:16<Julian>I don't think Mail::SPF, for example, should depend on Net::DNS::ParseBIND (or whatever it's called) just to be able to parse the test suite file.
19:16<Julian>Anyway...
19:17<SDGathman>How about JSON?
19:17<SDGathman>http://json.org/
19:17<Julian>SDGathman: Here's a suggestion for the intro message: Just describe the overall project of remaking the official test suite and explain that we're going to discuss the goals and the strategy on spf-devel and invite interested parties to join in.
19:17<willix>dnspython - you were right
19:17<SDGathman>Simple parsing routines for all languages from Java to Perl to Python to C to ...
19:18<SDGathman>Uses javascript format. Has dicts and lists - just what DNS data consists on.
19:18<Julian>Interesting. I'm not against it. A good format has existing parsing libs but still can be parsed "by hand" easily.
19:19<willix>BTW - for perl its "Net::DNS::Zone::Parser" (just fyi)
19:19<Julian>YAML and JSON seem to be good candidates. But the RFC 2822 header format (similar to YAML) or TSV (tab separated values) might be good enough, too.
19:20<Julian>Anyway, let's discuss that on spf-devel.
19:21<Julian>willix: So what was your issue about the resolutions and the website?
19:22<willix>I actually started on the minutes and resolutions...
19:23<Julian>I've seen it.
19:23<willix>The first questions I had is if all motions supposed to become resolutions (other then adjorn meeting of course)
19:23<Julian>willix: I also noticed you changed some old resolutions (which were obsolete alright) without council approval. :-)
19:24<Julian>No, I don't think we need all motions to become formal resolutions.
19:24<willix>and also few motions from mid-2005 that did need to be resolutions were missing and now numbering may also be screwed up
19:24<Julian>The numbering isn't all that important. I know I still need to write the outstanding minutes. It's on my TODO list.
19:24<willix>I actually was going to change it back, that was another question on roles.
19:25<willix>Should they be listed still as separate resolutions or not.
19:25<Julian>We might actually switch to naming resolutions after the date they were made on, plus a serial number, e.g. 2006-05-20.1 or something.
19:25<Julian>"Should they be listed still as separate resolutions or not" -- Which ones?
19:25<willix>hold on I'll give urls
19:26<willix>Council Chair - http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/5
19:27<willix>Council Secretary - http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/6
19:27<willix>Council Executive Directory - http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/6
19:27<willix>secretary was 7...
19:27<Julian>Ok, here's the deal:
19:28<Julian>When I was the secretary last year, my idea was to have the list of resolutions as a sort of "rulebook" about the council's and the project's operation. That leads to several consequences:
19:28<willix>I'm not finished and there are resolutions in part of the meeting I've not put in meeting on votity for chair and secreatary
19:28<willix>voting for chair and secretary
19:29<Julian>* I only created those motions as permanent resolutions which were of lasting relevance.
19:29<Julian>* I named them to fit the "rulebook" idea.
19:29<willix>But so far I'm finding basicly every motion as resolution
19:29<Julian>* I modified existing resolutions (using amendments) if the council decided to change something, instead of creating new resolutions and marking the old ones obsolete.
19:29<willix>from 2005 at least the first part of the year
19:30<willix>I followed how you did in the same way as well
19:30<Julian>I didn't say anything to the contrary, did I? :-)
19:30<Julian>I am just describing what my idea was when maintaining the resolutions.
19:31<willix>The issue is that I think if not all motions are resolutions, then we need separate list of all the motions poiting to meeting minutes which would need to clearly list them
19:32<willix>all successfull motions I mean
19:32<Julian>I usually included those "other" motions as prose in the meeting minutes.
19:32<Julian>I just asked myself, should this motion be part of the "rulebook"? If not, I wrote it as prose in the minutes.
19:32<willix>probably should go further and differentiate as colored box
19:33<Julian>Differentiate between what?
19:33<willix>other meeting minutes text
19:33<willix>Anyway, I guess I got the anwer - motions need not become resolutions.
19:34<Julian>I'm not sure that's required. I usually included a link to the IRC logs (at www.schlitt.net) in the minutes, so it was pretty clear when something was a motion.
19:34<Julian>"I'm not sure that's required." -- I meant colored boxes or the like.
19:35<Julian>If you don't think my "rulebook" idea makes much sense, then please feel free to propose your own idea.
19:35<willix>specific question also if "appreciation text" should be listed as resolutions.
19:36<Julian>No, that's not really of lasting relevance. We'll include the commendation on the page we talked about, and we're done with it.
19:37<willix>It seemed appropriate to put it into more then just minutes, but it did not find any other way to do it
19:37<Julian>Just mention it in the minutes when you write them.
19:37<Julian>It _will_ be put into more than the minutes. It will be put on said web page.
19:37<willix>Maybe some separate page in the future as to who helped on the project. Meng had something like this for old spf website
19:38<Julian>True.
19:38<Julian>I'm still thinking about how to best translate that old page to the new website,
19:38<Julian>I guess it should go on the "About Us" page: http://new.openspf.org/About_Us
19:40<willix>I think I meant the "original" spf site, i.e. 2003/2004 version...
19:41<Julian>You mean that one? http://dumbo.pobox.com/spf/
19:42<Julian>I don't know which page you mean, though.
19:42<willix>yes - though even on Meng's above link none of the pages exist...
19:44<Julian>You need to insert "/spf" after the hostname in all URLs.
19:45<Julian>e.g. http://dumbo.pobox.com/spf/site-index.html
19:45<Julian>Man, I liked the old site so much better than the new (now old) one.
19:46<Julian>There's http://dumbo.pobox.com/spf/donations.html -- perhaps you meant that one.
19:47<Julian>I need to take a break for a few hours. Beep me (say "Julian") if you need me.
19:47<willix>That is probably it, its been long time since I've seen original site.
19:48<willix>Anyway I'm going to remove 24 & 25 as resolutions and leave empty pages un case you need it
19:48<willix>(for remaining 2005 resolutions)
19:48<willix>BTW - that reminds me - is there a way to delete the page?
19:53<Julian>Yes, but you need admin privileges for that.
19:53<Julian>I can delete them later.
19:54<Julian>BTW, the above page exists on the new (now old) website as well: http://www.openspf.org/donations.html
19:54<Julian>It will be transferred to the new site one way or another (not simply dropped).
19:55<gmc>Julian: can you mention the procedure to me, for deleting pages, i left a bit of a mess here and there that i'd like to clean up (you did give me the access already)
19:56<Julian>gmc: You sure I gave you access? If you have access, you should have a "Delete this page" link at the bottom of the page (two lines below the "Edit text of this page" link).
19:56<Julian>But be careful as hell when deleting pages. It deletes them entirely, with history and all.
19:56<Julian>(You need to confirm every delete, too.)
19:56<gmc>well, i have the admin pass..
19:57<gmc>i'll be carefull indeed!
19:57<Julian>Ok, then you should have the link.
19:57<Julian>Do you see it?
19:57<gmc>allright, but probably only if i log in as 'admin' or something..
19:57<gmc>i'm logged in as myself
19:57<Julian>No, you can stay logged in as yourself.
19:57<Julian>You need to enter a special admin password in your preferences.
19:58<gmc>oh right.. i'll have a look at that later, currentnly working on the spf ticket anti-spam thingy
19:59<Julian>k
19:59<Julian>Let's move technical discussions to #spf.

This report was generated at Sat May 20 23:59:59 UTC 2006.