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/2006/10/28_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

--- Sat Oct 28 15:05:45 UTC 2006 ---
15:05<Julian>I wrote down last week's resolution: http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/27
17:02<Julian>Humm homm.
17:06<shew>Hello Julian.
17:09<SDGathman>Sorry I'm late.
17:10<shew>I was a few minutes late too.
17:13<Julian>Hey, cool, we have quorum.
17:13<Julian>I'm sorry for having announced the meeting late again.
17:14<Julian>It was sort of known in advance, but still...
17:14<Julian>Do you agree to have the meeting now as planned?
17:15<SDGathman>Sure.
17:15<shew>Yeah.
17:15<Julian>Then do you want any modifications to the agenda? http://archives.listbox.com/1943/200610/0004.html
17:15<shew>Nope.
17:16<Julian>OK, let's start.
17:16<Julian>1. Reports and news
17:16<Julian>I guess there's not much news to report.
17:17<Julian>Am I wrong?
17:17<Julian>Oops, the above is the wrong agenda.
17:17<Julian>This is the right one: http://archives.listbox.com/1943/200610/0008.html
17:18<shew>Heh. I was agreeing to the 0008.html one.
17:18<Julian>Good. :-)
17:18<shew>I didn't notice you mentioned the other in your question.
17:18<Julian>Anyway, does anyone have any interesting news?
17:18<Julian>If so, type "..." quickly.
17:18<shew>But as to reports,
17:19<shew>I haven't heard back from Harry Katz on continuing to talk about the patent issues, (since their OSP announcement),
17:19<shew>Though I did respond from our previous conversation.
17:19<shew>Still haven't redone the example front page. (Busy week.)
17:20<shew>That's it for me.
17:20<Julian>SDGathman: Are you still there?
17:22<Julian>wait(SDGathman);
17:23<SDGathman>Oops, blacklisting some IPs..
17:23<Julian>Hm?
17:23<SDGathman>Haven't added the include tests to test suite.
17:23<Julian>Let's do the sub-projects later.
17:24<Julian>SDGathman: I assume you don't have any interesting news either, right?
17:24<SDGathman>correct
17:24<Julian>Good.
17:24<Julian>2. The SPF project's presence at 2006-11-09 BITS "E-Mail Security" Meeting?
17:25<Julian>Have you noticed Jeff Carnahan's invitation of ours to the BITS meeting on Nov 9?
17:25<shew>I saw the email.
17:26<shew>I can't go myself though.
17:26<Julian>I think we could even forward the mail to the public council list. Any objections?
17:26<SDGathman>What is the time commitment?
17:26<Julian>It's a single day meeting in Washington, DC, from 08:30 to 16:00.
17:27<shew>Pulling up the email again..
17:27<Julian>If you haven't read the mail, the agenda, and the attendee list, please do so now. It's not a lot of text (just the BITS e-mail security paper is).
17:28<Julian>I'd like to make as much of the mail public as we feel is safe, so we can ask other participants of the SPF project whether they can represent us there.
17:29<Julian>grumpy: Have you read the mail and attached docs?
17:30<Julian>I think we should not publicize the paper, but the other stuff most likely isn't sensitive.
17:32<shew>Agreed.
17:32<shew>That is,
17:32<Julian>Among others, Jim Fenton (Cisco), Jeff Carnahan (US Bank), and Craig Speizle (Microsoft) seem to attend.
17:33*grumpy pokes his head in
17:33<Julian>(I think they misspelled "Craig Spiezle".)
17:33<shew>I agree that we should ask if other participants would like to represent us there, that we shouldn't publicize the forms, but the rest I wouldn't have any issue with.
17:33<grumpy>Julian: no, I have not read the mail/doc
17:33<shew>Sent Wednesday, October 25 to spf-private
17:33<Julian>grumpy: Would you do us the favor and read the mail, the agenda, and the attendee list, please? It's pretty short.
17:34<grumpy>uh, ok. I guess I try to ignore stuff on spf-private, not being on the council
17:34<Julian>shew: Yes, Jeff Carnahan sent it to spf-private. I don't think he has any other contact address of ours.
17:34<Julian>grumpy: It wasn't meant that way. If you weren't supposed to read stuff on spf-private, you wouldn't be on the list.
17:35<Julian>I mean, you're of course free to ignore the stuff.
17:35<grumpy>I thought I was still on spf-private just to have my stats script run...
17:35<Julian>No.
17:36<SDGathman>I could take a vacation day to attend. It is a 20 minute drive for me (or bike to Metro).
17:36<grumpy>I can not attend the meeting. It is in, just over a week from now, right?
17:36<Julian>http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/25
17:36<SDGathman>The question is what would I need to do at the meeting? I am not good at politiking.
17:37<Julian>SDGathman: If you could attend, it would be great. It seems that Jeff Carnahan would like one of us to.
17:37<SDGathman>If it is just a matter of explaining technical aspects - what SPF can and can't do - I'd be great.
17:38<Julian>I'm not sure what he expects, either, but I guess he wants our expertise. I doubt that he wants us to give a presentation on SPF. That seems to already being handled by "Vic Talamo and Patricia Serret, JPMC".
17:38<shew>There's already an spf discussion item on the agenda--so there's already folks to coordinate with with the spf topic.
17:38<Julian>Quoting from the agenda: "The purpose of the meeting is to bring together experts from the financial services industry with experts from Internet Service Providers and other service providers to reduce the amount of spam, phishing, and malicious code (e.g., spyware) through the adoption of common approaches to e-mail security. The ultimate goal is to improve the reliability of and consumer confidence in the e-mail delivery c
17:38<Julian>hannel."
17:39<Julian>I guess the meeting will be somewhat basic, trying to give the attendants from financial institutions an overview of the e-mail security situation and the existing/upcoming solutions.
17:41<Julian>So it would be good to have someone one whom we know to have such an overview, and perhaps correct them on any mistakes in their understanding.
17:41<shew>Agreed.
17:43<Julian>So, I propose the following plan:
17:43<Julian>1. Contact Jeff Carnahan and acknowledge that we received his invitation, that we are still pondering whom to send, and ask what parts of his mail we can make public to the SPF community.
17:43<shew>(Wish I could get up there, but I don't think I can.)
17:44<Julian>2. Send the relevant parts to spf-discuss and ask whether anyone wants to go (SDGathman being an obvious candidate).
17:44<Julian>3. Confirm the invitation with Jeff.
17:44<Julian>--
17:44<Julian>Comments?
17:45<shew>Definite agreement on all points.
17:46<SDGathman>agree
17:47<Julian>OK, let's do it that way. I'll send Jeff a mail later.
17:47<Julian>3. Status of the SPF domain names
17:47<Julian>I think we are still waiting on reactions from the ASF and/or the SPI.
17:48<Julian>Any revelations since last week? ;-)
17:48<Julian>(regarding WHOIS control and regarding DNS control)
17:49<Julian>I assume not, but if you have something to say on the topic, type "..." quickly.
17:51<Julian>OK, let's move on.
17:51<Julian>4. Sub-projects
17:51<Julian>a. Website transition
17:52<Julian>I know things have been going slowly. The new wizard is still waiting for Mail::SPF, which I hope to get done "very soon now(TM)".
17:52<Julian>Then the wizard shouldn't take more than a few hours of coding.
17:52<shew>My suggestion for less-busy front page is also a very-soon-now thing. I just was busier this week than expected and couldn't block out the time.
17:52<Julian>There are still a few other things that need to be transitioned from the old site, I think.
17:52<shew>But I still have the opinion that we should just set a date and transition then.
17:53<Julian>Let me see if I can dig out the list of TODOs that I once wrote.
17:54<Julian>Ah, here it is: http://archives.listbox.com/1996/200606/0026.html
17:54<Julian>Look for the "Essentials".
17:55<Julian>I think the following is "done" already: Media Inquiries <http://www.openspf.org/media.html>.
17:56<Julian>Well, we could use some finished "History" pages. Someone ought to review and finish the pages that William had started to write <http://new.openspf.org/History>, <http://new.openspf.org/History/SPF-2003>.
17:57<Julian>(because a rough history outline is part of the old "media inquiries" page)
17:58<Julian>Apart from that, the Executive Summary <http://www.openspf.org/execsumm.html> is the most important thing that doesn't depend on _me_.
17:58<shew>http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda
17:59<Julian>Do you mean something specific?
17:59<shew>I'll make seom time tomorrow to put your list from http://archives.listbox.com/1996/200606/0026.html into that website section of the agenda
18:00<shew>That doesn't actuall accomplish the changes, of course, but it lets us cross them off as they're done.
18:00<Julian>Good idea. But don't copy the "Odds'n'ends".
18:00<shew>okay.
18:00<Julian>Or at least put them into a <+></+> container so they don't clutter up the agenda page.
18:00<shew>Okay.
18:00<Julian>(Look at the vote log on any council resolution's page to see how it works.)
18:01<shew>Will do. Thanks.
18:01<shew>Any comments on the notion to just set a date?
18:01<SDGathman>Should I just create a page Executive_Summary on wiki?
18:02<shew>Say "Dec 1 we'll switch, no matter what"?
18:02<Julian>SDGathman: Might work. But perhaps this should be part of the "Introduction" page instead?
18:02<shew>(I hope you won't be offended if I take text from that for a reworked front page. :-) )
18:02<Julian>Text from _what_?
18:03<shew>From his future executive_summary page.
18:03<SDGathman>introduction page says most of what executive summary says - but better.
18:03<SDGathman>"SPF for management" is kind of insulting.
18:03<Julian>Why would anyone be offended? The main problem with the old exec summary page is that it's probably somewhat outdated and that there's room for improvement.
18:03<SDGathman>Not all managers are technical idiots.
18:03<Julian>SDGathman: Yeah...
18:05<Julian>In any case, I propose that we try to "say more with less words" and not make the new website have 5 pages describing one and the same thing.
18:05<Julian>If the exec summary can be integrated into the "Introduction" page, then all the better!
18:06<Julian>shew: If you're working on the alternative front page, are you planning to include a news section there, too?
18:07<shew>Probably. I don't like the clutter-ish look of the front page at the moment but having a news section is the only way to make it seem to continue to be "live", as it were.
18:07<shew>Or rather continue to seem to be live.
18:08<SDGathman>A lot of the exec page uses buzz words like "brand equity" where intro uses "reputation".
18:09<Julian>Let's get rid of the buzz words.
18:09<Julian>(I hope I remember adding the recent /. article to the news page and perhaps the current new front page's news section.)
18:10<Julian>a/adding/to add/ # Ahem. $grammar->fix();
18:10<Julian>Well, well.
18:11<Julian>OK, let's discuss shew's proposal to "just set a hard transition date" briefly.
18:11<SDGathman>I like the hard transition date.
18:11<SDGathman>New site "as is" is better than old site.
18:12<SDGathman>("well, well" - always funny in English because that word can be used as any part of speech and with multiple meanings.)
18:12<Julian>OK, we could live with having the old wizard and why pages for a few weeks longer after we switch the rest of the site, right?
18:12<shew>I worry that continuing to not have a release date will end up with the release date continuing to be pushed back.
18:12<shew>Sure.
18:12<shew>It's the opposite of the current situation, where some existing pages point to the new site.
18:13<Julian>Is 2006-12-01 a good date? It might make way for a nice pre-x-mas news announcement, too.
18:13<shew>Having that opposite situation will force fixes faster.
18:14<shew>Sure. I think that's a grand choice for a switchover date. :-)
18:15<Julian>Draft Motion: The old and new websites shall be switched around (http://new.openspf.org -> http://www, http://www -> http://old) on or before 2006-12-01. An announcement message shall be prepared beforehand and sent out on the day the switch takes place.
18:15<Julian>Any additions?
18:16<shew>Does this need to be an actual motion for this?
18:16<Julian>I think it doesn't hurt.
18:16<Julian>Or we can just put it up on the project agenda page.
18:17<Julian>Is anyone editing that page right now?
18:17<shew>I'm fine with it being a motion or not. I guess it's an interesting historical thing to document.
18:17<shew>I wasn't but I can log in and do so..
18:18<Julian>If you think it should be documented, then we'd better make it a resolution.
18:18<Julian>(... an aspect that I hadn't thought of before.)
18:18<shew>Say "on or around"
18:18<shew>Oh.
18:18<Julian>Oh what?
18:18<shew>The 1st is a Friday.
18:19<Julian>Is that a problem?
18:19<shew>The 2nd is a saturday, and we will presumably be having a meeting then.
18:19<shew>"on or around 2006-12-01".
18:19<shew>What is involved in the switch, once other prep-work is complete.
18:19<shew>?
18:19<Julian>What's "other prep-work"?
18:20<shew>What all is involved to change www.openspf.org to point to your wiki, other than the dns changes and httpd.conf edits? Is it something that just takes a minute of your time, or is there other work that has to be done during the switchover?
18:21<shew>I just realized that we could actually have the switchover occur during Saturday's meeting, if folks thought there was any value in that.
18:21<Julian>There's no DNS change involved. Both the old site and the new site are already running on earbone.openspf.org (Wayne's box).
18:21<shew>Otherwise, I'm fine with the draft.
18:22<Julian>Yes, there is other work besides editing httpd.confs. Many links, both on the old and (a few) on the new site, need to be adjusted.
18:22<SDGathman>If switch takes place *before* meeting, then we can discuss consequences.
18:22<shew>Okay. Then that's just asking for problems.
18:22<Julian>I think that can be accomplished in 3-4h, though.
18:22<shew>Good point, SDGathman.
18:23<Julian>So I'll just repeat the previous motion, OK?
18:23<shew>I'd suggest retroactively removing "draft" from your proposal. :-)
18:23<Julian>Motion: The old and new websites shall be switched around (http://new.openspf.org -> http://www, http://www -> http://old) on or before 2006-12-01. An announcement message shall be prepared beforehand and sent out on the day the switch takes place.
18:23<shew>18:23u seconded
18:23<Julian>Votes?
18:23<Julian>18:23u: yes
18:24<shew>18:23u: yes
18:24<SDGathman>18:23u yes
18:24<Julian>So ordered.
18:24<shew>Excellent!
18:25<Julian>4. Sub-projects
18:25<Julian>b. The test suite
18:25<Julian>What's the overall status of the test suite?
18:27<SDGathman>Has lots of tests covering most areas of spec. (Need include section, although include is used in other tests.)
18:28<Julian>Will the test suite ever be "complete"? If yes: should we try to reach that state soon?
18:29<SDGathman>If complete means every spec section is touched upon, then it should be complete with include section.
18:29<SDGathman>It complete means every possible way to screw it up is tested for, then no, it will never be complete.
18:30<Julian>Will it be ever that complete that we could release and announce it as "1.0"?
18:31<Julian>Of course there may be additional tests and/or fixes in the future, but I think that having an "1.0" test suite to which implementations can "conform to", that would be great.
18:31<SDGathman>The only implementations using it that I'm aware of are jSPF and pyspf.
18:31<Julian>Mail::SPF will join them soon.
18:32<Julian>Others might, too, in the future.
18:32<SDGathman>I would be more comfortable announcing 1.0 when Mail::SPF tests it.
18:32<Julian>LOL
18:32<SDGathman>It is not necessary for Mail::SPF to pass - just agree that the tests are valid.
18:32<Julian>I don't expect Mail::SPF to me more compliant than pyspf.
18:32<SDGathman>And that a test driver is reasonable to implement.
18:33<Julian>Well, OK. But do you agree that the test suite will, at some time, reach a "1.0" releasable state?
18:33<Julian>Or is it there already?
18:33<SDGathman>Yes. I would call it that after I add some include tests, and someone checks my appraisal that all relevant sections are touched upon.
18:34<SDGathman>I'm adding the include tests right now...
18:34<SDGathman>Basically just want to check result mapping...
18:34<Julian>grumpy suggested that we might want to review his old test suite and include some of the trickier cases that aren't already covered by the new suite.
18:35<SDGathman>I've been reviewing his old test suite.
18:35<Julian>Yeah? That's very good news.
18:36<SDGathman>I wanted to auto-convert his tests to an aux suite - but his handling of results is too Perl specific.
18:36<Julian>And I think that by now, it would be redundant for the larger part.
18:36<Julian>The important thing is to pick the few cherries that we don't have yet in the new suite.
18:37<Julian>I might be able to review Wayne's suite during the process of coupling Mail::SPF with the new test suite and killing any remaining bugs (in Mail::SPF). But I can't promise it.
18:38<SDGathman>I am concerned that C implementations don't like my "all data offline" policy. But I do a lot of C work, and compling with a macro hook to call a local resolver is not that big a deal.
18:38<Julian>It should be possible, I agree.
18:38<Julian>That reminds me, I need to release the Net::DNS::Resolver::Programmable Perl module that I wrote to CPAN.
18:39<SDGathman>A bigger deal is that C doesn't come with the data structures to represent the test data built in. I can only hope that any YAML implementation for C would select an appropriate data structure library.
18:39<Julian>Alright. Would it be fair to say that "the new test suite is not ready just yet" for now and revisit it in a week or two?
18:39<SDGathman>Let's see if I get the include tests done by the end of the metting...
18:39<Julian>Heh. A multi-tasking pro...
18:40<Julian>So lets move on.
18:41<Julian>4. Sub-projects
18:41<Julian>c. Mail::SPF
18:41<Julian>I think I've already mentioned all that's to be mentioned at this point. It'll be done "very soon now(TM)".
18:41<Julian>5. The RFC errata <http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata>
18:42<Julian>(ping shew, we're done with the test suite stuff)
18:42<shew>Thanks
18:42<shew>:-)
18:43<shew>I hadn't added the info past the errata framework, as you noticed.
18:43<shew>I will try to go back and add it in this week, but I consider the other two things higher priority.
18:43<Julian>Yeah. Don't overburden yourself. Do you think that Wayne (or Frank) should be working on the errata page, too?
18:43<Julian>If you do, please ask them to help you.
18:44<shew>Yeah. I don't trust myself to get the complaints right.
18:44<shew>But the nature of wikis is that once there is information up there that's slightly inaccurate, others are more likely to correct the text. :-)
18:44<Julian>True.
18:45<shew>So I'll ask, but I'll put the other things at a higher priority.
18:45<Julian>That reminds me of one more thing: I have pondered the reasons of the gross failure of the new website's "free-for-all editable" community section <http://new.openspf.org/Community_Vote>. Would it perhaps be a better idea to create an additional wiki at http://wiki.openspf.org? That might attract more people.
18:46<Julian>(Yes, I know it hasn't been announced widely so far, but...)
18:47<shew>I don't know. Maybe it would make sense to ask on spf-discuss.
18:47<Julian>Will do.
18:48<Julian>But that's probably an issue for after the websites have been switched.
18:48<shew>(Though in a sense this is a version of the user-interface usability-test problem where what people claim (in all honesty) they'd find easier to work with isn't what they really would, so the informatiobn you get is likely to have that same sort of bias.)
18:49<shew>True.
18:49<Julian>OK, final item for today.
18:49<Julian>6. Next steps and future strategy
18:50<Julian>Let's take a look at the project agenda: http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda
18:50<Julian>I expect us to finish items 2 and 3 before the end of the year.
18:51<Julian>Do you think the priorities of the remaining items are still appropriate?
18:51<shew>5 and 6 should be re-pinged before the end of the year too.
18:52<Julian>Personally, I think that #7, the "Spread SPF" campaign, should start not long after we announce the new test suite. Even at the same time, if possible.
18:52<shew>The last part of 4 is really a separate item--it's more of a "where we want to be" determination as opposed to the rest of 4,5,6's ongoing "report-on-where-we-are" determination.
18:53<shew>Most of 4,5,6 should probably be under a "continuing tasks" section.
18:53<Julian>If pyspf and Mail::SPF conform to the test suite, then I think we could declare both of them as reference implementations.
18:53<Julian>Re 4,5,6: right.
18:54<Julian>SDGathman: Any thoughts from you?
18:56<SDGathman>#4 is next step.
18:57<Julian>Alright. I propose that we revisit the project agenda in more detail at our next meeting, when William is back.
18:58<Julian>Please remember we have to work on a news announcement. Please submit interesting news items besides the website switch itself.
18:58<shew>On the project agenda,
18:58<Julian>Please send them to the spf-council list (or spf-private if they are supposed to come as a surprise to the news readers).
18:58<Julian>Yeah?
18:58<shew>getting support into more MTA's and OS's is a rather nebulous goal, that can never be said to be complete.
18:59<Julian>Certainly true.
18:59<shew>So maybe that should be reworded into a succinct list.
18:59<Julian>We should update the agenda. Is doing that at our next meeting sufficient?
18:59<shew>Sure. I had some edits in my browser though.
19:00<shew>We can wait until the next meeting to discuss that in detail.
19:00<Julian>Which ones?
19:00<shew>Basically putting the following as points in the agenda: # Determine if one of library implementations can be blessed as reference implementation immediately
19:00<shew># Get SPF into more MTA distros (in core or as plugins)
19:00<shew># Get SPF into more OS distros
19:00<shew>And then continuing tasks: === Continuing tasks
19:00<shew># Update the list of library implementations and their states
19:00<shew># Update the report on MTA support
19:00<shew># Update the report on OS support
19:01<Julian>Sounds reasonable. SDGathman, any objections to making those amendments to the agenda?
19:02<SDGathman>Yes, assuming that picking a test-suite revision precedes choosing reference implementations.
19:02<shew>Yes
19:02<Julian>Is that a "yes, I have objections", or a "yes, I agree"?
19:02<SDGathman>And establish a procedure for updating test-suite and
19:02<shew>It does preceed it still.
19:03<SDGathman>Ok, then I agree.
19:03<Julian>I'm fine with it, too.
19:03<shew>So the continuing items are broken out.
19:03<shew>The MTA and OS goals are still nebulous, but that's more of a discussion item than a quick edit.
19:04<shew>(This was more of an editorial change for clarity than a change to our real agenda.)
19:04<shew>Reload http://new.openspf.org/auth/Project_Agenda
19:05<shew>That does bring Julian's comment of "If pyspf and Mail::SPF conform to the test suite, then I think we could declare both of them as reference implementations." back to the forefront.
19:05<Julian>Should the list of continuing tasks be prioritized ("# foo"), or not ("* foo")?
19:05<SDGathman>Wouldn't you know, pyspf fails two of the 7 include tests...
19:05<Julian>shew: "... back to the forefront": Good!
19:06<shew>(You're right. I had kept the previous priority, which doesn't really make sense in the context of continuing tasks.)
19:07<SDGathman>Nope, test errors. All fixed now.
19:07<shew>(BTW, I responded to that call-for-rfc-lawyers email on the DOS limits topic.)
19:08<Julian>I urgently need to catch up on spf-devel.
19:08<SDGathman>And you're missing from the informal contributors credits... your full is Mark Shewmaker, correct?
19:09<shew>Correct
19:09<Julian>OK, anything left to discuss for today?
19:09<shew>Uhm,
19:09<shew>on the reference implementation blessing,
19:09<shew>has that been deferred to subsequent meetings then?
19:10<shew>I really would be deferring to others myself in that actually, so it probably would make sense to delay on it until William is back.
19:10<SDGathman>Can we have a review of test suite to identify any sections not touched upon?
19:10<Julian>Well, it's not on the meeting agenda anyway. And I think it needs more preparation than what has been done before today's meeting. I.e. the council needs to review the candidates.
19:10<SDGathman>I've been staring at it too long.
19:10<shew>Good. I'm more comfortable with it being on a future agenda.
19:11<Julian>I will probably be reviewing the test suite soon, when I couple it with Mail::SPF.
19:11<SDGathman>We don't have an MX record syntax section.
19:11<Julian>What does that mean?
19:12<SDGathman>Another section that should be added.
19:12<Julian>Testing whether "mx:/5" or "mx:foo/77" is valid syntax?
19:12<SDGathman>And basic MX semantics.
19:12<Julian>Oh. That we definitely need, I agree.
19:13<SDGathman>I've already covered the DOS corner cases.
19:13<Julian>Sounds great. I suspect that I'll have a lot of minor bug fixing to do on Mail::SPF... :-)
19:14<shew>So that's pretty much today's agenda then...
19:14<Julian>OK, anything left to discuss for today?
19:14<shew>Nothing here.
19:14<Julian>Motion: Adjourn the meeting.
19:15<shew>19:15u seconded
19:15<Julian>Votes?
19:15<Julian>yes
19:15<shew>19:15u: Yes
19:15<Julian>SDGathman? Anything else to discuss?
19:16<SDGathman>Not that needs to be on spf-council.
19:16<SDGathman>19:15u: yes
19:16<Julian>Meeting is hereby adjourned.
19:16<Julian>Thanks!
19:16<Julian>A productive meeting.
19:16<shew>Thanks.
19:16<shew>Yes it was.
19:17<Julian>Now I'll write mails to MarkK (in case he still reads it) and Jeff Carnahan.

This report was generated at Sat Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2006.