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.
| 18:03 | <Julian> | "Test suite is also used by jSPF project." -- Ah, very good. |
| 18:03 | <Julian> | willix: Are you there? |
| 18:03 | <Julian> | BTW, try un.int and un.org. |
| 18:04 | <Julian> | Any other news? |
| 18:05 | <shew> | Yes. |
| 18:05 | <shew> | Two things. |
| 18:05 | <shew> | Firstly, although I put up the misspelled example erratta format, I haven't filled in the erratta sections yet. |
| 18:06 | <shew> | The second is something I would like to mention on #spf-private, though that can be done later in the meeting as well. |
| 18:08 | <Julian> | OK, shew /msg'd me and I think we should handle the item right now. It's about the MS patent issue. |
| 18:09 | <SDGathman> | SPF Wizard is a problem. Does wizard have to be in perl? Would a cgi style python program be efficient enough? Is modpython available on web server? |
| 18:09 | <Julian> | Please join #spf-private for a few minutes so we can discuss the MS patent issue. |
| 18:10 | <Julian> | willix? |
| 18:11 | <willix> | sorry, I had to step out |
| 18:11 | <willix> | reading chat log.. |
| 18:12 | <willix> | there needs text for |
| 18:12 | <willix> | %v errata |
| 18:12 | <shew> | True. |
| 18:28 | <shew> | Okay, done with #spf-private |
| 18:30 | <shew> | For folks reading, basically I'm trying to at least broach the subject with MS with regards to the continuing S-ID patent incompatibility problems, to head off any unnecessary encumberances (whether valid or not) with any future spf fversions. |
| 18:31 | <Julian> | OK, thank you, shew. |
| 18:31 | <shew> | The conversation was basically about asking about that. |
| 18:31 | <shew> | Thanks for the time. |
| 18:31 | <Julian> | Any more reports or news? |
| 18:31 | <willix> | I can report either now or later |
| 18:31 | <Julian> | If so, type "..." quickly. |
| 18:32 | <willix> | ... |
| 18:32 | <willix> | do people remember my email to council list from last weekend? |
| 18:32 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 18:33 | <Julian> | I think nobody had any objections (obviously, since nobody replied to your mail). |
| 18:34 | <Julian> | It's http://archives.listbox.com/1943/200610/0003.html , BTW. |
| 18:34 | <willix> | Thank you, I was trying to find an archive... |
| 18:35 | <Julian> | So, are you going to contact the SPI? |
| 18:35 | <willix> | Basicly ASP SA folks suggested I talk to Debian's SPI because they think their project range is more general where as ASF is very software specific |
| 18:35 | <willix> | Yes, I wanted to get council's consent |
| 18:36 | <willix> | Also it should be understand that discussions with ASF are just postponed |
| 18:36 | <Julian> | You have mine. Do you want us to vote? |
| 18:36 | <shew> | You have my consent as well. Not for committing us of course, but definitely for asking about it in an official capacity. |
| 18:36 | <Julian> | Yes, what shew said. |
| 18:37 | <Julian> | SDGathman? |
| 18:37 | <SDGathman> | Fine with me |
| 18:37 | <willix> | Ok, I'll go ahead and report next Saturday then |
| 18:37 | <Julian> | OK, I think there's no need for a formal resolution. willix, please go ahead. |
| 18:37 | <willix> | no need for resolution |
| 18:37 | <Julian> | Any more reports or news? If so, type "..." quickly. |
| 18:38 | <SDGathman> | ... |
| 18:38 | <SDGathman> | Can we discuss Wizard later? |
| 18:38 | <Julian> | Yes, let's do that in 5a. Or don't you think it fits there? |
| 18:38 | <SDGathman> | I guess that is an agenda request. |
| 18:38 | <SDGathman> | That is fine. |
| 18:39 | <Julian> | OK. Any more reports or news? If so, type "..." quickly. |
| 18:39 | <willix> | Just FYI - I have another hour and then I don't know if I can stay |
| 18:39 | <Julian> | I'd very much like to get 1-5 done today. |
| 18:40 | <Julian> | Alright, I see no more reports and news. |
| 18:40 | <Julian> | 2. What to do about council members that are MIA? |
| 18:40 | <Julian> | So I propose that we first make a general rule. |
| 18:41 | <Julian> | For starters, let me try to make a rough motion so we have something to discuss. |
| 18:41 | <willix> | first we need to define "MIA" |
| 18:41 | <Julian> | MIA = missing in action. Yes, we need to define what that means. |
| 18:41 | <Julian> | Let me make an attempt. |
| 18:41 | <shew> | And also, the question should perhaps be a bit more broad. |
| 18:41 | <Julian> | How so? |
| 18:42 | <willix> | I mean specifically when it applies, i.e. how long person should have been not seen at council meetings, etc |
| 18:42 | <shew> | Not just focused on just the member. (Things such as someone else taking their place.) |
| 18:42 | <Julian> | OK. ... |
| 18:42 | <shew> | Some sort of rule where the quorum required is already reduced when there is a MIA situation. |
| 18:42 | <shew> | oops. Automatically reduced. |
| 18:43 | <SDGathman> | Since council terms are for a year, I would say the 3 months with no listbox or meeting activity, and no phone contact. |
| 18:43 | <SDGathman> | A long vacation can easily be 1 month. |
| 18:44 | <SDGathman> | So 1 month min, 3 months max. |
| 18:45 | <willix> | I'd say that after 2 month of absense (no meeting or email list activity) a council may propose that person be considered MIA after additional month of no activity |
| 18:45 | <Julian> | "When a member of the council has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and a satisfactory excuse could not be obtained from the member, they shall be considered 'missing in action'." |
| 18:46 | <Julian> | "... satisfactory, as decided by the remaining members, ..." |
| 18:46 | <shew> | hmm |
| 18:46 | <Julian> | Is that an acceptable definition of "MIA"? |
| 18:46 | <willix> | Yes, that is good |
| 18:46 | <shew> | I would actually suggest lowering that to one month. |
| 18:47 | <Julian> | I'd be content with 1 month. |
| 18:47 | <willix> | No, I'd say one month is too short |
| 18:47 | <shew> | If we're away, we should be proactive with notifying folks. |
| 18:47 | <Julian> | True. |
| 18:48 | <Julian> | So, any changes to the above text? |
| 18:48 | <shew> | There should also be no shame involved with there being an emergency that prevents that. No censure or anything, if that's the right term. |
| 18:48 | <SDGathman> | Right - no more than learning they've been run over by a bus. |
| 18:49 | <Julian> | Let me rephrase the above text. |
| 18:49 | <shew> | Before you propose it as a motion, can we go through everything else too.. That is, describing everything implied by a member being MIA. |
| 18:49 | <Julian> | Sure. |
| 18:49 | <shew> | (I wasn't suggesting any rewording for the "no-shame" bit. Just that emergencies do come up and everything should be about keeping the council functioning and not disabled when things happen with individual members.) |
| 18:50 | <shew> | However, as a future April fools, I would be okay with voting that Council Members are not to be allowed to be run over by a bus. :-) |
| 18:52 | <willix> | It maybe funny but the thing is when something like this happens the person forgets about a lot of the additional non-profit/open-source and related activities |
| 18:53 | <willix> | he'd forgot to notify but situation could be temporary for only one month (more likely family matter, etc) |
| 18:54 | <willix> | Our activities are also such that we often don't hear from other people in council for two weeks |
| 18:54 | <willix> | adding it all up, it just seems to me that one month term for considering MIA is too short |
| 18:55 | <Julian> | "When a member of the council has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall automatically be considered 'missing in action'. If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them, the council may declare |
| 18:55 | <Julian> | them 'non-participant'." |
| 18:55 | <shew> | What would you suggest? Right now if more than one person is MIA we can't do anything. That's why I have a bias towards easy-to-MIA and it being an undoable thing and not-overly-serious. |
| 18:55 | <Julian> | Or s/non-participant/AWOL/? |
| 18:55 | <Julian> | (After the above text, the consequences would be defined.) |
| 18:56 | <Julian> | Comments? |
| 18:56 | <shew> | Thinking. |
| 18:56 | <shew> | What is a prolonged period of absence? |
| 18:57 | <Julian> | Whatever the council deems appropriate. Not necessarily 2 months. |
| 18:57 | <shew> | Does this mean that after a couple weeks a council could be a non-participant, and then after 2 months MIA? |
| 18:57 | <Julian> | Remember, that's meant for the case when the non-participating member _can_ be reached. |
| 18:58 | <Julian> | Yes, theoretically that would be possible. |
| 18:58 | <shew> | Hmm. Okay. |
| 18:58 | <Julian> | Please hold your breath until willix returns. |
| 18:58 | <shew> | But no more than two months. :-) |
| 18:58 | <Julian> | LOL |
| 19:01 | <Julian> | BTW: "Right now if more than one person is MIA we can't do anything." -- The above text would principally allow two remaining members to declare the other three as MIA/AWOL (if the conditions are fulfilled). |
| 19:02 | <Julian> | We might want to insert a quorum of three. |
| 19:02 | <SDGathman> | If only two members are left, they should be able to request a new election. |
| 19:03 | <SDGathman> | (Or one.) |
| 19:03 | <Julian> | I think that case is pretty unlikely. Let's not worry about that. |
| 19:03 | <Julian> | "When a member of the council has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall automatically be considered 'missing in action'. If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained fro |
| 19:03 | <Julian> | m them, the council may declare them 'absent without leave'." |
| 19:03 | <SDGathman> | Hey, with Iran and N Korea getting the bomb, the MIA rules may get used . . . |
| 19:04 | <shew> | In previous meetings there was the suggestion to automatically ask the next-condorcet-ranked folks to stand in. (I dont' know if I suggested that or simply agreed with the sentiment.) |
| 19:04 | <shew> | As opposed to holding etra elections. |
| 19:05 | <Julian> | Is the above definition of "MIA" and "AWOL" acceptable so we can proceed to defining the consequences? |
| 19:05 | <Julian> | (We can return to the MIA/AWOL definition later if necessary.) |
| 19:05 | <shew> | ok |
| 19:05 | <willix> | The way it should work is that if remaining council members declared in resolution that somebody is MIA, they then can appoint somebody else to serve on the council |
| 19:06 | <willix> | the appointment would be expected to go to next highiest voted person from previous election |
| 19:06 | <shew> | Would the appt be temporary? |
| 19:07 | <willix> | yes |
| 19:07 | <Julian> | No. |
| 19:07 | <willix> | :) |
| 19:07 | <Julian> | That wouldn't be fair to the new council member. |
| 19:07 | <willix> | any appointment is by definition temporary |
| 19:07 | <shew> | If a person was to take a month-long vacation, and was proactive about it, could the member ask for a temporary appointment while he's gone? |
| 19:07 | <SDGathman> | The appointment should remain until the end of the term. |
| 19:08 | <SDGathman> | Except for shews example. |
| 19:08 | <Julian> | shew: I think that would be a good idea. |
| 19:08 | <SDGathman> | If the council ends up with 6 members - it apparently needs that many to |
| 19:08 | <SDGathman> | get quorum. |
| 19:09 | <willix> | the aponitment is to fulfil the term of the missing council member as long as his situation does not change |
| 19:09 | <shew> | Okay, so temporary appointment/proxy if you ask or or proactive, permanent-through-end-of-term if it's forced on you. |
| 19:09 | <willix> | Note also that similar-worded rules apply when somebody resigns |
| 19:09 | <shew> | Oh. I may misunderstand your viewpoint then willix. |
| 19:09 | <willix> | There is basicly a missing sit at the council that other council members can fill out |
| 19:10 | <shew> | (that would be "or are proactive" above.) |
| 19:10 | <Julian> | Let's handle shew's "voluntary leave" situation later. |
| 19:10 | <Julian> | "A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council." |
| 19:11 | <Julian> | Comments? |
| 19:11 | <SDGathman> | What about ties? |
| 19:11 | <Julian> | Then let's toss a coin. :-) |
| 19:11 | <SDGathman> | Nobody can see the toss. |
| 19:11 | <Julian> | There never was a rule for that corner case. |
| 19:12 | <SDGathman> | We need a trusted coin-flip protocol... :-) |
| 19:12 | <shew> | A person could be declared AWOL after one day, then replaced. |
| 19:12 | <Julian> | I guess one of the candidates would be wise enough to withdraw voluntarily in such a situation. |
| 19:12 | <shew> | Without the "or AWOL", I'm fine with that. |
| 19:13 | <SDGathman> | Most likely, the candidates will be very busy, and doing us a favor to participate. |
| 19:13 | <Julian> | shew: Would you prefer to have a clearly defined period of time for AWOLness? |
| 19:13 | <SDGathman> | However, in the event of a tie, it should be decided by remaining members, after asking both (or all three) candidates about their willingness. |
| 19:14 | <SDGathman> | No esoteric protocol required. |
| 19:14 | <Julian> | Guys, let's not try to cover all the unprobably eventualities... |
| 19:14 | <Julian> | Guys, let's not try to cover all the unprobable eventualities... |
| 19:14 | <shew> | Julian: I'm not sure. I'm fine with the MIA notion, and that causing replacement. |
| 19:14 | <SDGathman> | Hey, we're programmers. That's our job :-) |
| 19:15 | <shew> | But for AWOL--that's somewhat nebulous and it also causes replacement. |
| 19:15 | <Julian> | shew: What about Mr. Foo saying "Yes, I did receive your mails, but I don't want to participate, and I don't want to resign either."? |
| 19:16 | <willix> | that is not an acceptable excuse |
| 19:16 | <shew> | Would temporary replacement work for that situation? |
| 19:16 | <willix> | for non-participation |
| 19:17 | <Julian> | shew: Why temporary? If Mr. Foo says "I'll be back in 3 months, please don't throw me out", then that's a different matter (which I think we should discuss later). |
| 19:17 | <Julian> | But if they deliberately refuse to cooperate, then it should be up to the remaining council to replace them. |
| 19:17 | <shew> | Haha. I just had a thought. |
| 19:18 | <Julian> | Reminder: willix needs to leave soon. |
| 19:18 | <shew> | This might make more sense for the next election though, but. |
| 19:18 | <Julian> | What thought? |
| 19:18 | <willix> | I have at least 30 minutes |
| 19:18 | <willix> | I do wnat to point out that technically there are two concepts |
| 19:19 | <shew> | What if the votes for resolutions and such were taken from the top-five participating condorcet-ranked election winners? |
| 19:19 | <Julian> | shew: You mean a kind of dynamic council membership? |
| 19:19 | <shew> | That is, is there perhaps some much simpler way of doing this? |
| 19:19 | <willix> | one is "vacant sit" on the council which happens when either 1. person resigns or 2. he asks to be excused temporarily or 3. Other council members decide he's MIA |
| 19:20 | <willix> | and the MIA concept itself which basicly is that other council member may decide person is MIA if he's not participating |
| 19:20 | <Julian> | Yes. That's what I intended. |
| 19:20 | <Julian> | I only used "AWOL" as another word for "MIA, but explicitly decided by the remaining council". |
| 19:20 | <shew> | Thanks willix, I agree with that sentiment too. |
| 19:21 | <willix> | When MIA condition is met and council approves this in a vote only then do we have vacant sit and then there is separate guideline to be followed to fill that sit |
| 19:21 | <shew> | oops. misread. |
| 19:22 | <Julian> | I don't think MIAness (unreachable for 2 months) ought to require confirmation by the council. It's a simple fact. |
| 19:22 | <Julian> | That's why it is very clearly defined. |
| 19:22 | <shew> | I see temporarily-excused and a temporarily-nonparticipating as separate from a person-resigning and other council members deciding he's MIA. |
| 19:23 | <willix> | MIA is simple fact but to invoke it and consider council sit vacant should require separate vote |
| 19:23 | <Julian> | Agreed. |
| 19:23 | <Julian> | I meant, I agree with shew. |
| 19:23 | <shew> | I think willix, Julian, and I are basically in agreement on this sentiment then. |
| 19:23 | <Julian> | I think only the act of replacing a MIA member ought to require confirmation, not the fact of being MIA itself. |
| 19:24 | <shew> | Agreed. |
| 19:24 | <willix> | From guidelines for another organization: |
| 19:24 | <willix> | In the event that one of the elected positions on the ARIN Advisory Council is vacated before the end of the term of that position, the following procedure may, at the option of the current AC, be used to select an individual to fill that position until the next regularly scheduled ARIN AC election. At that time, the remaining term of that position (if any) will be open to the general election process. |
| 19:24 | <willix> | 1. When there are runner-up nominees from the previous ARIN AC election who received at least 5% of the total votes cast, the AC will ask the runner-up with the highest number of votes if he/she is willing to serve out the term until the next regular election. The AC may continue down the list of candidates, in order of highest number of votes and still within the 5% category, until a replacement is found. |
| 19:24 | <willix> | 2. When there are no eligible candidates from the prior election, the Advisory Council may, by majority vote, appoint an interim representative. |
| 19:24 | <Julian> | Interesting, but more complex than necessary for our purposes. |
| 19:25 | <Julian> | #2 could be reused, though. |
| 19:25 | <Julian> | OK, I'll repeat what we have so far: |
| 19:25 | <shew> | It's hard to translate receiving-atl-least-5%-of-total-votes into condorcet-world. |
| 19:25 | <Julian> | "When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall automatically be considered 'missing in action' (MIA). |
| 19:26 | <Julian> | If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them, the council may declare them 'absent without leave' (AWOL). |
| 19:26 | <Julian> | A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council." |
| 19:26 | <Julian> | -- |
| 19:26 | <Julian> | I acknowledge the above is still incomplete. |
| 19:26 | <Julian> | But of what we already have, does anyone think it needs to be changed? If so, what part? |
| 19:27 | <Julian> | "... The replacement shall require confirmation by the remaining council members." |
| 19:28 | <Julian> | That would require one vote in the MIA case (for the replacement) and two votes in the AWOL case (1. determine AWOL status, 2. confirm replacement). |
| 19:28 | <willix> | I think it even MIA should rquire confirmation of council members |
| 19:29 | <Julian> | I disagree. What do the others think? |
| 19:29 | <SDGathman> | Then if 2 are MIA, there is no way forward. |
| 19:29 | <SDGathman> | You need relaxed quorum rules for determining MIA status. |
| 19:29 | <willix> | Yes, I agree about relaxed rules |
| 19:30 | <Julian> | What's there to determine about MIA status? |
| 19:30 | <willix> | Personally I think we're better off with common AWOL/MIA defintion |
| 19:31 | <Julian> | But then we should drop the two months requirement. |
| 19:31 | <Julian> | Then I'd agree. |
| 19:32 | <Julian> | There's no point in requiring a strict period of time to elapse AND a council vote. |
| 19:32 | <Julian> | Even if you do NOT trust the "remaining council" not to abuse the rules, they can still abuse them after two months, even if the member in question DID participate. |
| 19:33 | <Julian> | There's no council police. |
| 19:33 | <SDGathman> | Are MIA members eligible for reelection? |
| 19:33 | <Julian> | Of course. |
| 19:34 | <Julian> | I can't imagine why not. |
| 19:34 | <shew> | I agree that they should be. |
| 19:34 | <SDGathman> | Then any abuse is limited to the 1 year term. |
| 19:34 | <Julian> | Comments on dropping the strict 2 months requirement in favor of unified MIA/AWOL handling? |
| 19:34 | <shew> | Can you explain what this unified handling would mean? |
| 19:34 | <shew> | I'm somewhat confused on it. |
| 19:35 | <Julian> | In effect, it would mean this: "At any time, a majority of at least three council members can decide to remove any member from the council." |
| 19:36 | <Julian> | It may sound harsh, but I think it would actually be a good and simple rule. |
| 19:36 | <SDGathman> | There should be a requirement of some minimum period of non-participation which the world at large can observe. |
| 19:36 | <willix> | I have a proposal. |
| 19:36 | <Julian> | willix: Go ahead. |
| 19:37 | <SDGathman> | I someone is at all the meetings, but being an a**, Julian's rule would let the others get rid of him. |
| 19:37 | <willix> | Leave two definitions but have them use differently. |
| 19:37 | <shew> | This may work better in email than IRC, as we're getting into edits of things we more or less agree on the general sentiments of. |
| 19:37 | <willix> | MIA would be used to lower the quorum |
| 19:37 | <Julian> | willix: ... lower the quorum for what purposes? |
| 19:37 | <Julian> | For _all_ purposes? |
| 19:37 | <willix> | AWOL is used to declare vacant council sit |
| 19:39 | <willix> | When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion |
| 19:39 | <willix> | on the council mailing lists for more then a month, he maybe considered |
| 19:39 | <willix> | 'missing in action' and a quorum for council meeting is lowered by one. |
| 19:39 | <Julian> | Interesting idea. But that would enable the council to let the MIA member occupy his seat and play the game with only four players, with a reduced quorum. I don't think this is an extremely good idea. |
| 19:40 | <Julian> | I mean, I know that that's what we've been doing for the past months, but I'd rather see the "unused" but occupied seat be reallocated ASAP when it is clear that the member is MIA. |
| 19:41 | <SDGathman> | So reduced quorum only for getting a new member. |
| 19:41 | <SDGathman> | From the next in the list. |
| 19:41 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 19:41 | <willix> | If the member is MIA for period of month or more or can be reached after |
| 19:41 | <willix> | a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by |
| 19:41 | <willix> | a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not be |
| 19:41 | <Julian> | "A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. The replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the remaining council members." |
| 19:42 | <Julian> | That's effectively a reduced quorum for the purpose of selecting a new member. |
| 19:43 | <SDGathman> | That sounds good to me. |
| 19:43 | <shew> | What about an unoccupied seat being temporarily allocated to next-in-line after (short-period-of-inactive-time or proactively-notified-temporary-absense), or permanently after (longer-period-of-inactive-time or voluntary-resignation). |
| 19:43 | <shew> | (I was typing that as Julian sent the previous.) |
| 19:43 | <SDGathman> | In a case of MIA (as opposed to AWOL), the member recovered from their coma can rejoin the (now larger council). |
| 19:44 | <Julian> | Well, I don't think the council should be able to grow larger, but as this case is highly unlikely, I could live with such a rule. |
| 19:44 | <shew> | I don't see how the council could grow larger with Julian's rule. |
| 19:45 | <Julian> | Please do propose concrete wordings. I'll repost what I have in my editor: |
| 19:45 | <SDGathman> | Maybe the recovered MIA could be honored with a non-voting membership, like ex-council members. |
| 19:45 | <Julian> | When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall automatically be considered 'missing in action' (MIA). |
| 19:45 | <Julian> | If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them, the council may declare them 'absent without leave' (AWOL). |
| 19:45 | <Julian> | A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. The replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the remaining council members. |
| 19:45 | <Julian> | -- |
| 19:46 | <Julian> | Sorry if I missed any obviously consented amendments. |
| 19:46 | <willix> | Here is my alternative as I posted above: |
| 19:46 | <willix> | 1. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for more then a month, he maybe considered 'missing in action' and a quorum for council meeting is lowered by one. |
| 19:47 | <willix> | 2. If the member is MIA for period of a month or more or can be reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them, the council may declare them 'absent without leave' (AWOL) |
| 19:48 | <willix> | cil member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from |
| 19:48 | <willix> | hold on |
| 19:48 | <Julian> | That means a member cannot be replaced unless they have been MIA for two months, or have been MIA for one month and give an insatisfactory excuse. |
| 19:48 | <willix> | 3. A council member who is AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. The replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the remaining council members. |
| 19:49 | <willix> | correct |
| 19:49 | <Julian> | What about someone who has never been MIA but refuses to participate? |
| 19:50 | <SDGathman> | A filibuster... |
| 19:50 | <Julian> | (... not that this case were very likely.) |
| 19:50 | <willix> | he's MIA if he does not participate |
| 19:51 | <Julian> | Any objections to willix's version? |
| 19:51 | <Julian> | I think it's a bit complex, but I can live with it. |
| 19:51 | <shew> | I'm trying to type up somethign more automatic. |
| 19:52 | <shew> | Though I also like willix's versiobn. |
| 19:52 | <shew> | version |
| 19:53 | <Julian> | Should I try to fix the grammar? (No offense, willix.) |
| 19:54 | <willix> | yes go ahead |
| 19:55 | <shew> | Let me cut&paste my alternate. It will likely just show willix/Julian's versions to be much better in comparison, heh. |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 1. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion onthe council mailing lists for 2 weeks, they shall automatically be considered |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 'absent without leave' (AWOL). |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 2. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or discussion onthe council mailing lists for 2 months, they shall automatically be considered |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 'missing in action' (MIA). |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 3. MIA council members will automatically be replaced by the next best winner |
| 19:55 | <shew> | of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. |
| 19:55 | <shew> | 4. AWOL council members will automatically be temporarily replaced by the next |
| 19:55 | <shew> | best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. |
| 19:56 | <shew> | That can be cleaned up, but it's a way of doing this sort of thing all automatically. |
| 19:56 | <Julian> | I like the reversed order of "MIA" and "AWOL". It makes sense. |
| 19:57 | <Julian> | I don't think AWOL should require only two weeks of absence. |
| 19:57 | <Julian> | Or, at least the temporary replacement due to AWOLness should not be automatic. |
| 19:57 | <SDGathman> | Yes, long vacation is one month. |
| 19:58 | <shew> | It is probably too short. I mainly wanted to suggest this as an alternate way of looking at the problem. |
| 19:58 | <Julian> | We could include "without explanation" in the AWOL definition. |
| 19:58 | <willix> | I don't like automaticly replaements without confirmation of MIA/AWOL |
| 19:59 | <Julian> | I think that replacement members should always have to be confirmed by at least three council members. |
| 19:59 | <shew> | If someone is out for a month, is it better to ask another person to take their place temporarily, or to have reduced quorum? |
| 19:59 | <willix> | also two weeks is way too short |
| 19:59 | <Julian> | I think we should handle the temporary replacement issue another day. |
| 19:59 | <willix> | reduced quorum is typical answer |
| 20:00 | <shew> | Why should replacement members be confirmed? |
| 20:00 | * | Julian is still rephrasing willix's version. |
| 20:00 | <shew> | Other than confirming their willingness to replace a MIA/AWOL member? |
| 20:00 | <willix> | in majority of other democratic institutions |
| 20:01 | <shew> | I'm sorry--I disagree with you Julian. I would like to handle the permanent and temporary replacement policy all at once, so it's cohesive. |
| 20:01 | <willix> | in some cases what happens is that there are "non voting" alternative members who do participate and they get a vote if somebody else is missing |
| 20:01 | <Julian> | shew: I think the council should have the final say, not the rules. The rules may specify minimum requirements, but I don't like having it all entirely automatic. |
| 20:02 | <shew> | In general I disagree there as well. When a person does become awol, there are likely to be tensions of some sort, and that's the precise time where automatic rules work best. |
| 20:04 | <shew> | I'm fine with us voting on whether having-surgery/being-on-vacation is a good-enough-excuse, but.. when replacement is necessary...I don't see what exactly it is that we'd be confirming, other than that the replacment is happy to join. |
| 20:04 | <shew> | (Well, grudgingly okay more than actually fine.) |
| 20:05 | <Julian> | I agree. |
| 20:05 | <willix> | this does not require voting |
| 20:05 | <Julian> | Let me see what I can make of this and willix's last version. |
| 20:08 | <willix> | fyi - 15/20 minutes and I have to go |
| 20:08 | <Julian> | Here it comes: |
| 20:08 | <willix> | although I still like to get this issues passed into resolution, but most likely actually using it may have to be on next meeting |
| 20:08 | <Julian> | When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the MIA member returns. |
| 20:08 | <Julian> | If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'absent without leave' (AWOL) by a majority of three of the remaining council. |
| 20:08 | <Julian> | A council member who is AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. |
| 20:08 | <Julian> | -- |
| 20:09 | <Julian> | Should we swap the terms "MIA" and "AWOL"? Or replace "AWOL" by "inactive"? |
| 20:10 | <Julian> | The above is a compromise. It does not require confirmation of the replacement in the "MIA for two months" case. |
| 20:10 | <willix> | AWOL can also be replaced by saying that if person is MIA or did not give an excuse or resigns then their council position is considered vacant |
| 20:11 | <Julian> | But that would just make the text longer and harder to understand, right? |
| 20:11 | <willix> | yes |
| 20:11 | <shew> | Can you describe the compromise? |
| 20:11 | <Julian> | So, any objections to the above text (modulo s/AWOL/inactive/, which I'd actually prefer)? |
| 20:12 | <shew> | Is it just about confirmation? (If so, were there reasons for the confirmation?) |
| 20:12 | <Julian> | Well, the compromise is that it doesn't require confirmation in the "MIA for two months" case, like you requested. |
| 20:12 | <Julian> | I think willix proposed that confirmation. |
| 20:12 | <shew> | Willix, are you okay with no-confirmation? |
| 20:13 | <Julian> | Can we now agree that the above text is "good enough" and trust in the council not to abuse any looholes? ;-) |
| 20:13 | <willix> | I'd rather have confirmation, but I can leave with your text |
| 20:13 | <shew> | (If he's okay with it then it's not even a compromise. :-) ) |
| 20:13 | <Julian> | looPholes |
| 20:13 | <shew> | Willix, what was the reason for confirmation? |
| 20:13 | <willix> | s/leave/live/ |
| 20:13 | <shew> | I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. |
| 20:14 | <shew> | (I'm liking the text, and would like to replace AWOL with inactive too. Just re-reading.) |
| 20:14 | <Julian> | 19:28 UTC <willix> I think it even MIA should rquire confirmation of council members |
| 20:14 | <willix> | it just a matter of democratic process |
| 20:15 | <willix> | I prefer that situation be confirmed |
| 20:15 | <SDGathman> | The confirmation would serve as a mark. Outside observers can see when the reduced quorum rule was invoked, and check that the requirements were properly met. |
| 20:15 | <Julian> | The question is, can there be a case when the rules force a replacement despite the council not wanting to? |
| 20:16 | <willix> | Yes, as SDG put it |
| 20:16 | <SDGathman> | Julian, no your last rules only reduce quorum automatically (on upon confirmation for benefit of outside observers). |
| 20:16 | <SDGathman> | Actually removing member requires a vote (with reduced quorum). |
| 20:17 | <Julian> | Not wanting to prolong the discussion, but does it really? |
| 20:17 | <Julian> | Yes, you're right, it does. |
| 20:17 | <Julian> | There's no automatic "MIA for two months --> member replaced" mechanism. |
| 20:17 | <willix> | The purpose of MIA rule not requirying confirmation is so that council could meet even if fewer persons can be gathered |
| 20:17 | <SDGathman> | The council has to declare them AWOL as opposed to MIA. |
| 20:17 | <Julian> | Yep. |
| 20:17 | <SDGathman> | MIA does not get replaced. AWOL does. |
| 20:17 | <shew> | I'm fine with it requiring a vote actually, because the vote in effect validates that an official attempt at contact was made. |
| 20:18 | <Julian> | s/AWOL/inactive/ |
| 20:18 | <Julian> | OK, I'll repost the text, can we then vote on it? |
| 20:18 | <shew> | SDGathman's objection on MIA requiring a mark can be fixed by an edit in that paragraph-- |
| 20:18 | <Julian> | shew: Shoot. |
| 20:19 | <shew> | by saying that the MIA is automatic upon any remaining council member noting it in some way. |
| 20:19 | <willix> | Post it as a motion |
| 20:19 | <Julian> | Wait. |
| 20:19 | <Julian> | shew: Can you post a modified first paragraph? |
| 20:19 | <shew> | Can you add that logic into the MIA definition Julian? (And perhaps do the s/AWOL/inactive/ )? |
| 20:19 | <shew> | Will try. One sec. |
| 20:22 | <shew> | When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically |
| 20:22 | <shew> | considered 'missing in action' (MIA) once any remaining council member makes not of this fact on the spf council mailing lists or spf council irc channel, and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the |
| 20:22 | <shew> | MIA member returns. |
| 20:22 | <shew> | Please feel free to edit and improve of course! |
| 20:22 | <shew> | But does this address your marking concern, SDGathman? |
| 20:22 | <shew> | mark-the-event concern |
| 20:23 | <Julian> | I think the marking is implicit. |
| 20:23 | <SDGathman> | shew, yes |
| 20:23 | <Julian> | I mean, the need of explicitly marking the event is implied by the old text. |
| 20:23 | <Julian> | I mean, the fact cannot be determined without somebody noting it. |
| 20:23 | <willix> | It is - they council meets and decided that they can do so with lower quorum |
| 20:23 | <shew> | I actually prefer the old text actually. |
| 20:24 | <Julian> | Me too. |
| 20:24 | <shew> | But the awkardness of adding this addition is okay if it's required for SDGathman to feal more at ease. |
| 20:24 | <Julian> | OK, next try: |
| 20:24 | <shew> | When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically |
| 20:24 | <shew> | considered 'missing in action' (MIA) once any remaining council member makes note of this fact on the spf council mailing list or spf council irc channel, and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the |
| 20:24 | <shew> | MIA member returns. |
| 20:24 | <shew> | Spelling fixes. |
| 20:25 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Do you think this explicitness is required? |
| 20:26 | <SDGathman> | Yes. Someone just needs to say, "Since we haven't seen Foo in a month, |
| 20:26 | <SDGathman> | let's use the reduced quorum rule." |
| 20:26 | <Julian> | OK, let me try... (pasting) |
| 20:26 | <shew> | Wait. |
| 20:26 | <shew> | SDGathman, I think you're disagreeing with yourself.. |
| 20:27 | <Julian> | When a council member is determined to not having taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the MIA member returns. |
| 20:27 | <Julian> | -- |
| 20:27 | <shew> | With Julian's wording, when quorum is lowered "automatically", then wouldn't that have to be noticed to work? |
| 20:27 | <Julian> | What about that? |
| 20:27 | <Julian> | Yes, I agree with shew. But I think it _can_ be made more explicit, see my last proposal. |
| 20:28 | <SDGathman> | An outside observer might wonder if the council decisions are valid with only three members. |
| 20:28 | <SDGathman> | By mentioning the reduced quorum rule, they know where to look to validate the procedings. |
| 20:28 | <willix> | in practical terms somebody has to call the meeting to order and determine there is a quorum present |
| 20:28 | <shew> | But we do have http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/3 |
| 20:28 | <shew> | An outside observer would have to see something was up. |
| 20:29 | <SDGathman> | Outside observers are necessarily intimately familiar with council rules. |
| 20:29 | <Julian> | The new resolution is more specific than #3, so it obviously overrides #3 in the specific case. |
| 20:29 | <shew> | Now, if we had a MIA situation and had four people, that could be an invisible situation and catch the MIA member off guard I guess through the next month. |
| 20:29 | <Julian> | Guys, please... |
| 20:30 | <Julian> | What about my last proposal? |
| 20:30 | <shew> | Julian: I agree. I was simply addressing the outside-observer issue. |
| 20:31 | <shew> | Wording: Change "to not having taken" to "to have not taken". |
| 20:31 | <shew> | oops. |
| 20:31 | <shew> | no, that's correct. |
| 20:31 | <shew> | Change to "to have not taken". |
| 20:31 | <Julian> | Which one is correct? |
| 20:31 | <Julian> | OK. |
| 20:32 | <Julian> | Although it sounds odd. |
| 20:33 | <Julian> | No, I reject that wording. It sounds too odd for me. |
| 20:33 | <shew> | I think it's a german/english difference. |
| 20:33 | <Julian> | I'm not comparing it to German grammar. |
| 20:33 | <shew> | "to have not taken" versus the more german-sounding "to having not taken". |
| 20:33 | <shew> | oh |
| 20:33 | <shew> | ok |
| 20:33 | <Julian> | "When a council member is determined to have not taken part in ..."? |
| 20:33 | <shew> | Yes. |
| 20:33 | <Julian> | Hmm, alright. |
| 20:34 | <Julian> | Whatever you say. If it's wrong, it's your fault. :-P |
| 20:34 | <shew> | Separate question for everyone else than the actual issue at hand--does that sound correct? |
| 20:34 | <shew> | Haha. |
| 20:34 | <shew> | You can even kick me out of the council for it if you like. If I continue to disagree with you for three months and there's a vote. :-) |
| 20:35 | <shew> | SDGathman: Does Julian's new wording address your concern? (And what is your opinion on the "to have not taken part" bit?) |
| 20:35 | <Julian> | OK, let me paste the (hopefully) final version: |
| 20:35 | <Julian> | When a council member is determined to have not taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the MIA member returns. |
| 20:35 | <Julian> | If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'inactive' by a majority of three of the remaining council. |
| 20:35 | <Julian> | A council member who is inactive, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. |
| 20:35 | <Julian> | -- |
| 20:36 | <SDGathman> | The assumption is that when the moderator mentions the reduced quorum, that is the mark? |
| 20:36 | <shew> | No, when the "determination" occurs |
| 20:36 | <Julian> | Well, I think "determination" means "someone notes it, and a majority does not object". |
| 20:37 | <shew> | Right. |
| 20:37 | <SDGathman> | Ok, that is good enough. |
| 20:37 | <shew> | Then I have a minor question. |
| 20:37 | <Julian> | Shoot. |
| 20:37 | <shew> | Should the "majority of" be deleted? |
| 20:37 | <Julian> | Probably. |
| 20:38 | <Julian> | It would have to be replaced by "at least". |
| 20:38 | <shew> | Arguments either way really. |
| 20:38 | <Julian> | Insofar, I don't see the point. |
| 20:38 | <shew> | You have a quorum of three, meaning you need two of those three. |
| 20:38 | <willix> | yes, please delete "majority", it should be at least 3 |
| 20:38 | <Julian> | shew: Oh, you're right. |
| 20:38 | <Julian> | OK, here it comes: |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | Motion: |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | When a council member is determined to have not taken part in council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three until the MIA member returns. |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'inactive' by at least three of the remaining council. |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | A council member who is inactive, or who voluntarily resigns from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining the council. |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | -- |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | s/at least three/at least three members/ |
| 20:39 | <Julian> | (editorial nit) |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | Any seconds? |
| 20:40 | <willix> | motion seconded |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | Votes on 2039u? |
| 20:40 | <shew> | Wait. |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | Hrrm. |
| 20:40 | <shew> | Do you not want to add in temporary things at the moment? |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | Whazzup? |
| 20:40 | <shew> | Temporary leave. |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | I don't think we have the time. |
| 20:40 | <willix> | not right now, perhaps with another resolution when its needed |
| 20:40 | <Julian> | right now. |
| 20:40 | <shew> | It would fit right in if you had perfect text all ready. (I don't.) |
| 20:40 | <shew> | Okay. |
| 20:41 | <SDGathman> | I agree. Motion so far handles current situation. |
| 20:41 | <Julian> | I think it can be amended easily. |
| 20:41 | <Julian> | (later) |
| 20:41 | <shew> | Thank you for the out-of-order quick discussion. |
| 20:41 | <Julian> | Votes on 2039u? |
| 20:41 | <shew> | 2039u: Agree |
| 20:41 | <SDGathman> | 2039u agree |
| 20:41 | <willix> | 2039u: yes |
| 20:41 | <Julian> | 2039u: yes |
| 20:41 | <Julian> | So ordered. |
| 20:42 | <Julian> | Thank you. |
| 20:42 | <Julian> | Can we apply the new rule today? Or must we wait until next week's meeting? |
| 20:42 | <willix> | the MIA can be applied |
| 20:43 | <shew> | We can apply the reduced quorum rule / MIA rule today. |
| 20:43 | <Julian> | OK. |
| 20:43 | <Julian> | So MarkK is MIA. Any objections? |
| 20:43 | <willix> | I may have to leave but basicly you'd still have quorum |
| 20:43 | <willix> | But lets continue for now |
| 20:43 | <shew> | Has he actually not posted for a month to spf-council? |
| 20:44 | <Julian> | shew: Definitely not. |
| 20:45 | <Julian> | You're of course free to try it yourselves. |
| 20:46 | <shew> | You're right. Last post in July. |
| 20:47 | <Julian> | So I assume there are no objections to declaring him MIA. |
| 20:47 | <shew> | I have no objections. |
| 20:47 | <willix> | no objections |
| 20:47 | <SDGathman> | No objection. |
| 20:48 | <Julian> | OK. Can we quickly discuss "4. Status of the SPF domain names"? |
| 20:48 | <Julian> | This issue is not just about domain ownership but also about DNS control. |
| 20:49 | <Julian> | We already discussed the domain ownership: willix will contact the SPI (and continue discussions with the ASF), after which we will make our decision. |
| 20:49 | <willix> | Assuming I can get replies over the week, we'd ended up discusing it next week |
| 20:50 | <willix> | council will remain in control of dns as far as what I want to negotiate |
| 20:50 | <Julian> | I know. |
| 20:50 | <Julian> | The problem is, currently DNS control is only with grumpy. |
| 20:51 | <Julian> | It's not a big issue, but it's a single point of failure none the less. |
| 20:51 | <willix> | there are multiple dns servers |
| 20:51 | <Julian> | True, but only one master. |
| 20:51 | <Julian> | There's a name server installed on earbone.openspf.org (so far BIND, but I also installed PowerDNS today). We could use that one. |
| 20:53 | <Julian> | I don't think we can work out a detailed plan today, but I'd like to know what you generally think of moving DNS to "our own" DNS servers (away from godaddy's). |
| 20:53 | <Julian> | There once was the plan of leaving it with GoDaddy but having a separate GoDaddy account for them and share the password among the council members. |
| 20:53 | <willix> | they are not godaddy's - see whois for openspf.* |
| 20:54 | <Julian> | Oh. |
| 20:54 | <Julian> | They were. At least until recently. |
| 20:54 | <Julian> | grumpy: Are you there? |
| 20:55 | <willix> | I think current situation is fine. I agree there is some concern with having single primary, but almost everyone runs this risk |
| 20:55 | <Julian> | It seems grumpy moved the domains to "TOTALREGISTRATIONS" <http://www.totalregistrations.com>. |
| 20:56 | <willix> | as long at leasst one secondary also has additional revision control, we're fine |
| 20:56 | <Julian> | Don't confuse a "primary nameserver" with a "master nameserver". |
| 20:56 | <willix> | right |
| 20:57 | <willix> | in practical terms all publicly seen nameservers are equal |
| 20:58 | <Julian> | The thing still is that only Wayne has access to the domains' DNS configuration. |
| 20:58 | <willix> | that's control of godaddy account and is trustee-related issue |
| 20:59 | <willix> | btw, I have to go |
| 20:59 | <Julian> | The domains are no longer with GoDaddy. |
| 20:59 | <Julian> | They are with http://www.totalregistrations.com it seems. |
| 20:59 | <willix> | the domains are still with godaddy |
| 21:00 | <Julian> | Where do you see that? |
| 21:00 | <Julian> | Oh, there. |
| 21:00 | <willix> | whois -h whois.completewhois.com openspf.org |
| 21:00 | <Julian> | "http://www.totalregistrations.com" |
| 21:00 | * | Julian can't paste properly. |
| 21:00 | <Julian> | "Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)" |
| 21:00 | <Julian> | Sorry for the confusion. |
| 21:01 | <shew> | I'm partial to gandi myself. |
| 21:01 | <shew> | But that's more of a trustee-related issue. |
| 21:01 | <Julian> | So, lawyering aside, does anyone else think that DNS control should be opened up? |
| 21:01 | <Julian> | If not, I'll shut up now. |
| 21:02 | <SDGathman> | I'm happy if there is some automatic way for control to transfer to a council member in the event grumpy is run over by a bus. |
| 21:02 | <shew> | Agreed. |
| 21:02 | <Julian> | Currently there isn't. |
| 21:03 | <Julian> | Neither for domain ownership, nor for the DNS configuration. |
| 21:04 | <Julian> | OK, let's continue this discussion next week when we know more about what the SPI or the ASF think. |
| 21:04 | <willix> | ok, I'm leaving [but will still be seen on the channel, I wan to keep log] |
| 21:04 | <shew> | Maybe Grumpy could simply send one of us a physical letter saying the council has the rights to the domains. That would address a majority of our worries simply. |
| 21:04 | <SDGathman> | This was mentioned before, but a quick fix is to move the domains to a separate account at the registrar (easy with most registrars) and give the password to several people. |
| 21:04 | <Julian> | The log is automatically posted to spf-council. |
| 21:04 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Yes. The problem with that is that the domains would have to be paid for again. |
| 21:05 | <SDGathman> | All they want is a credit card number. |
| 21:05 | <Julian> | SDGathman: Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that they would want them to be paid for again. |
| 21:05 | <Julian> | At least that's what grumpy reported. |
| 21:05 | <SDGathman> | I'd be happy to pay for the domains in the event grumpy gets run over. |
| 21:06 | <Julian> | Let's wait and see what the SPI and the ASF say. |
| 21:06 | <shew> | ok |
| 21:07 | <Julian> | Should we adjourn the meeting or handle item 5 (website, etc.)? |
| 21:09 | <shew> | I'm fine either way I suppose. |
| 21:09 | <Julian> | SDGathman? |
| 21:10 | <SDGathman> | I can stay a little longer. |
| 21:10 | <shew> | There are a couple things I need to do on the website, (alternate front page and update the errata), but other than that I am still pushing for as quick a transition as possible. |
| 21:10 | <Julian> | OK. |
| 21:10 | <Julian> | 5. Sub-projects |
| 21:10 | <Julian> | a. Website transition |
| 21:10 | <Julian> | I agree with what shew said. |
| 21:10 | <SDGathman> | I want to know whether working on a new wizard in python would be useful. |
| 21:10 | <Julian> | shew: Have you made drafts for the alternate frontpage? |
| 21:11 | <shew> | No. |
| 21:11 | <shew> | I will absolutely do that this week. |
| 21:12 | <Julian> | SDGathman: mod_python could be installed, but a Python module can't be integrated in the website easily. It could be "mounted" (`Alias`ed in the Apache configuration) into the URL space, though. |
| 21:13 | <SDGathman> | The wizard is mainly a standalone page. |
| 21:13 | <SDGathman> | So getting 'mounted' is fine. |
| 21:13 | <Julian> | I'm really pretty close to making a first pre-release of Mail::SPF. I have been writing documentation and unit tests for the past weeks. |
| 21:14 | <Julian> | Perhaps this should be a competition, even if it means duplicated work? |
| 21:15 | <SDGathman> | Something has to be done about the wizard. |
| 21:15 | <Julian> | I can install mod_python and give you root access to earbone if you want. Other than that, be assured that I'm working on Mail::SPF as much as possible. |
| 21:16 | <SDGathman> | As long as it *could* be installed, I can put up a prototype on my own site for approval. |
| 21:17 | <SDGathman> | I've got so much to do - port lots of stuff from RH7.3 to Centos-4.4. |
| 21:17 | <Julian> | It may not hurt to have two implementations. I'm planning on packaging the Mail::SPF-based wizard anyway so it can be reused. |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | I do recognize the importance of getting rid of the old wizard (and website) ASAP. It's just that there aren't a lot of hackers available to us... |
| 21:19 | <SDGathman> | I've been giving out new.openspf.org so people don't see the old front page... |
| 21:19 | <Julian> | Is there anything else that can be done about the website transition at this time? |
| 21:20 | <SDGathman> | My personal preference would be to make new.openspf.org the default - with a link to the old page were people can find stuff that hasn't been transitioned yet. |
| 21:20 | <SDGathman> | That way, people feel like the site is active - as opposed to abandoned. |
| 21:21 | <Julian> | That switch isn't exactly trivial. It certainly requires 2-3h of work. |
| 21:21 | <SDGathman> | It already has the old website link. |
| 21:22 | <SDGathman> | Isn't it just a matter of changing a line in httpd.conf? |
| 21:22 | <Julian> | All the old URLs will have to be redirected, too. |
| 21:23 | <Julian> | This work will eventually have to be done anyway, though. |
| 21:24 | <Julian> | I'll think about what needs be done in what order, and what can be done sooner rather than later. |
| 21:24 | <SDGathman> | In our setup, each virtual domain is assigned to a directory. Apache assigns any domain not otherwise assigned to be the same as the first virtual domain. |
| 21:24 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 21:25 | <SDGathman> | I see, you're worried about preserving links to internal pages, so they still go someplace sensible? |
| 21:25 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 21:26 | <SDGathman> | Can't you have any unknown internal links go to a page telling abouit the transition, with a link to the FrontPage? |
| 21:26 | <Julian> | Now we have http://www.openspf.org/whatdoes.html and http://new.openspf.org/Introduction. After the switch, the former will have to be redirected to http://old.openspf.org/whatdoes.html and the latter to http://www.openspf.org/Introduction. |
| 21:26 | <SDGathman> | (That would have to be a feature of the wiki being used.) |
| 21:27 | <Julian> | I don't think this is an appropriate solution, even if it is doable. |
| 21:28 | <SDGathman> | So you'll have to painstakingly collect a list of old -> new urls and add them |
| 21:28 | <SDGathman> | to apache as rewrites or aliases. |
| 21:28 | <Julian> | Yes. I think this will have to be done in any case. |
| 21:29 | <SDGathman> | You don't need to do that for new.openspf.org. Just make that and www.openspf.org and openspf.org go to the same place after the switch. |
| 21:29 | <SDGathman> | You'll just need the rewrites for old urls you want to go someplace similar on the new site. |
| 21:30 | <SDGathman> | You can rewrite them to old.openspf.org for stuff not transitioned. |
| 21:30 | <SDGathman> | Still, a lot of work. |
| 21:30 | <Julian> | Yes, http://new.openspf.org/* can be redirected to http://www.openspf.org/* blanket. |
| 21:31 | <Julian> | I guess I'm too tired to think about the problem thoroughly now. |
| 21:32 | <SDGathman> | When they are transitioned, just change the rewrite to point to the new page instead. |
| 21:32 | <Julian> | Yes, that's what I've been doing for a while. |
| 21:32 | <SDGathman> | The wiki page with list of pages needing transition could serve as template for your list of rewrite rules. |
| 21:32 | <Julian> | Most of the important old pages have already been transitioned with redirects. |
| 21:34 | <Julian> | Alright, let's conclude "a. Website transition" for today. And I retract "c. Mail::SPF", or the part that I haven't reported already. |
| 21:35 | <Julian> | Is there anything left to discuss on "b. The test suite"? |
| 21:36 | <SDGathman> | I plan to add a section for 'include' next. (Verify mapping of include result to match/nomatch.) |
| 21:36 | <Julian> | Ah. |
| 21:36 | <Julian> | Are you progressing by RFC section? |
| 21:36 | <SDGathman> | match/nomatch/Permerror, that is. |
| 21:37 | <Julian> | Or are you just filling gaps now? |
| 21:37 | <SDGathman> | Not in order, but yes, I do a section at a time. |
| 21:37 | <SDGathman> | And add corner cases that occur to me or come up on mailing lists. |
| 21:37 | <Julian> | Sounds good. |
| 21:38 | <Julian> | I'm very eager to get the Perl test driver done and see in how many dozen ways Mail::SPF breaks. ;-) |
| 21:38 | <SDGathman> | My favorite corner case is a:foo...bar |
| 21:38 | <Julian> | Yeah, it's not discussed by the spec explciitly. |
| 21:40 | <SDGathman> | You should be able to translate the python test driver in the bin directory. |
| 21:40 | <SDGathman> | Add the perl driver there when you're done. Test driver authors can use examples. |
| 21:40 | <Julian> | I'm going to write a Net::DNS::Resolver replacement class that reads the test suite file. |
| 21:42 | <Julian> | Alright, I'd really like to conclude today's meeting now. I'm tired. |
| 21:42 | <SDGathman> | Me too. |
| 21:42 | <shew> | Okay. |
| 21:42 | <SDGathman> | Say the word. |
| 21:43 | <Julian> | Motion: Adjourn the meeting, and meet again next Saturday (2006-10-28). |
| 21:43 | <SDGathman> | 1343u seconded |
| 21:43 | <shew> | 1343u Agreed. |
| 21:43 | <Julian> | Votes? |
| 21:43 | <Julian> | yes |
| 21:43 | <SDGathman> | 1343u yes |
| 21:43 | <Julian> | The meeting is adjourned. Thanks! |
| 21:44 | <Julian> | I'll be here for some time, idle. |