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/2007/02/09_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

--- Mon Feb 5 22:47:55 UTC 2007 ---
22:47<Bouncer>ScottK: Voila.
22:55<ScottK>Yes. It works.
--- Wed Feb 7 20:23:10 UTC 2007 ---
20:23<alex_b>wb julian. time for a new laptop?
--- Fri Feb 9 16:45:00 UTC 2007 ---
16:45<alex_b>15 minutes to the meeting
16:45<Julian>Yup.
16:54<Julian>hi xyzzy
17:02<alex_b>hi all; everybody here?
17:04<Julian>Stuart is still missing.
17:07<alex_b>Perhaps there's some confusion. The agenda says this: The scheduled meeting time is coming Saturday 2007-02-10 18:00 UTC[1].
17:15*ScottK is here.
17:16<ScottK>I lost track of which day we were meeting on.
17:17<Julian>Hmm, I assumed that http://archives.listbox.com/1943/200702/0021.html was a pretty clear indication that we'd be falling back to the Friday slot.
17:17<Julian>Maybe I should have sent another announcement. *sigh*
17:17<alex_b>So did I.
17:17<alex_b>I'm still not sure if I can make it or not tomorrow
17:17<Julian>alex_b: Not your fault.
17:18<ScottK>I just sent Stuart e-mail.
17:18<Julian>ScottK: Thanks. Won't help probably, though.
17:19<ScottK>How long can everyone stay?
17:20*ScottK is wondering how long we can afford to wait.
17:20<alex_b>will need food sometime, otherwise can stay untill approx. 2100Z
17:21*ScottK can stay until 2030Z
17:25<Julian>I can stay indefinitely. It's just that I'm still in the office and would like to go home before 20:30 UTC.
17:25<Julian>(Riding home means being AFK for ~20min.)
17:26<alex_b>OK. Why not retry at 18:00 UTC ?
17:26<ScottK>FIne with me.
17:27<Julian>I cannot leave within the next ~15min.
17:27<Julian>I still need to finish something.
17:28<alex_b>18:00 UTC was just a suggestion, can also be 18:30 or 19:00
17:28<alex_b>(1900 would mean only 1.5 hours for Scott?)
17:29<alex_b>zyzzy: you missed me saying: OK. Why not retry at 18:00 UTC ?
17:29<Julian>Let's postpone until 18:30 UTC (1h from now).
17:29<ScottK>OK. If we run over, I have to disappear for a bit between 2030 and 2100 UTC, but can resume after.
17:29*alex_b is OK with that
17:30<alex_b>and with that too
17:30*ScottK will e-mail the update to Stuart once xyzzy agrees...
17:31<alex_b>xyzzy has voice now
17:31<Julian>I'll instruct Bouncer to recognize xyzzy as soon as I'm home.
17:32<alex_b>Frank, you're OK with a retry at 18:30 UTC ?
17:32<xyzzy>yes
17:32<ScottK>Message sent.
17:32<alex_b>OK see you then
17:32<alex_b>bye
18:00<Julian>hi SDGathman
18:00<Julian>We postponed the meeting to 18:30 UTC (in 30min). I'm going to ride home now and will be back in time.
18:00<Julian>bbl
18:29<Julian>Lah dee dah.
18:30*ScottK is here.
18:31<ScottK>According to my clock it's time to start.
18:31*alex_b is here
18:31<xyzzy>Hi all.
18:31<Julian>xyzzy: Did you see my question on #spf?
18:34<SDGathman>I've been here.
18:34<Julian>Cool, let's start.
18:35<ScottK>1. Modus operandi of the new council? IRC meetings vs. mailing list?
18:35<Julian>Does anyone wish to modify the agenda <http://archives.listbox.com/1943/200702/0017.html>?
18:35<Julian>If so, type "..." quickly.
18:35<alex_b>no
18:36<ScottK>no
18:36<xyzzy>go
18:36<Julian>OK. What ScottK said: 1. Modus operandi of the new council? IRC meetings vs. mailing list?
18:36<xyzzy>Whatever works better depending on the case
18:36<alex_b>let's look at this case by case
18:36<ScottK>I like the way it was done in the past. Try to do IRC, but allow for rolling votes on mailing list if necessary.
18:37<alex_b>sometimes mailing list will be better, sometimes irc
18:37<Julian>So everyone is fine with IRC meetings?
18:37<Julian>SDGathman?
18:37<alex_b>seems to work for me
18:37<ScottK>Good for me.
18:37<SDGathman>IRC is fine.
18:37<SDGathman>I can't afford plane fare.
18:37<Julian>LOL
18:37*Julian neither.
18:38<xyzzy>If my gateway fails I watch on Wayne's log and send mails :-)
18:38<Julian>OK. Should we try to have semi-regular meetings, like "try to meet every two weeks"?
18:38<xyzzy>yes
18:38<ScottK>yes
18:38<Julian>That would help keeping meetings shorter.
18:38<ScottK>Even if it's just to show up and say no new business.
18:38*alex_b suggests to save a slot that could be used if needed, but no obligatory meetings
18:38<alex_b>scott and me seem to agree
18:38<alex_b>sort of
18:39*ScottK is fine with what alex_b said.
18:39<Julian>OK. Saturday seems to have been a good regular slot in the past. Who does not think that Saturdays would be best for this?
18:39<Julian>No one? Good.
18:39<alex_b>like any other day in the week: exceptions will happen, but usually it's ok
18:40<Julian>What time would be good? Last year, we had 17:00 UTC, IIRC.
18:40<alex_b>fine with me
18:40<ScottK>17;00 UTC is very good for me.
18:40<xyzzy>Not before 12:00 UTC if possible
18:41<ScottK>Any objections to 17:00 UTC?
18:41<alex_b>1700 UTC is not "good", but "good enough"
18:41<Julian>alex_b: What would you prefer?
18:41<ScottK>Would earlier be better?
18:41<alex_b>15:00 would be better
18:41<alex_b>but I can live with 1700
18:42*ScottK is good with 1500, but would prefer 1600 or 1700.
18:42<ScottK>How about we split the difference and go with 1600 UTC
18:42<xyzzy>Scott: okay
18:42<Julian>alex_b: Would 16:00 be better than 17:00?
18:42<alex_b>also fine with me. Prefer not to talk for 2 hours
18:42<alex_b>Julian: yes
18:43<Julian>SDGathman: Any preferences?
18:43<SDGathman>1500-1700 are all fine for starting time on Sat
18:43<alex_b>anybody here not dealing with summer time ?
18:44<Julian>I usually don't care about summer time. Well, I do, but not for international meeting times.
18:44<alex_b>if we could change to 15:00 during DST then it would be very nice
18:44<ScottK>That's fine.
18:45<alex_b>the small difference between US and EU summer time shouldn't be a problem, we deal with that when we get there
18:45<xyzzy>In October :-)
18:45<alex_b>and march/april ?
18:45<xyzzy>Did they also extend it in spring?
18:46<Julian>Motion: The 2007 council has a regular slot for optional meetings: on Saturdays, 16:00..18:00 UTC (15:00..17:00 UTC during DST times).
18:46<xyzzy>secanded
18:46<alex_b>seconded
18:46<ScottK>:46 yes
18:46<xyzzy>yes
18:46<Julian>(Note: meetings aren't supposed to go for 2h every time.)
18:46<Julian>Votes on 18:47?
18:46<xyzzy>18:47 yes
18:46<SDGathman>1847 yes
18:46<Julian>18:47 yes
18:47<alex_b>sorry guys, didn't understand what that was about
18:48<xyzzy>18:47 is the timestamp of the seconded motion
18:48<ScottK>:47 yes
18:48<alex_b>ahh... it was 19:46 here (on both my radio clock and my NTP server)
18:48*ScottK discovers ntp is not working correctly on this computer.
18:48<Julian>alex_b: Anyone on the council can make a motion at any time during the meetings, and the chair then calls for a second, and then for votes. The time stamp (UTC) of the motion is the key.
18:49<alex_b>motion unanymously accepted I guess
18:49<Julian>alex_b: Do you vote "yes"?
18:49<alex_b>time sync: 19:39:25
18:49<alex_b>yes
18:49<alex_b>19:49:35
18:49<Julian>OK, motion passed.
18:49<alex_b>sorry
18:49<Julian>Fri 2007-02-09 18:49:51 UTC
18:49<xyzzy>19:49 is CET, not UTC :-)
18:50<Julian>I think my PC's clock is off by a minute.
18:50<ScottK>13:50 EST
18:51<xyzzy>What next, thank Mark + Mark + William?
18:51<ScottK>Yes.
18:51<Julian>2. Thanks to...
18:51<Julian>- William, the election officer
18:51<Julian>Motion: The 2007 council thanks William Leibzon for acting as the election officer for the 2007 council elections!
18:51<alex_b>thank you all mentioned in the agenda, and anybody we may have forgotten about
18:51<ScottK>:51 - Yes.
18:52<xyzzy>:51 seconded + yes
18:52<SDGathman>18:51 yes
18:52<Julian>18:51 yes
18:54<Julian>I assume alex_b agrees.
18:54<Julian>So the motion passes.
18:54*alex_b wrote: thank you all mentioned in the agenda, and anybody we may have forgotten about
18:54<Julian>Motion: The 2007 council thanks the losing candidates of the council election, Mark Shewmaker and Terry Fielder, for their willingness to be on the 2007 council and invites them to work closely with the new council.
18:54<alex_b>If we're only about to thank William, I disagree
18:55<ScottK>:54 seconded and yes.
18:55<SDGathman>1854 yes
18:55<xyzzy>:54 yes
18:55<Julian>alex_b: This doesn't have to take long even if we do it in a slightly more formal way.
18:55<alex_b>is ":54" about julian, or about my remark (both :54)
18:56<ScottK>Julian's motion.
18:56<Julian>It relates to the motion.
18:56<xyzzy>:54 is about the motion, not the remark
18:56<SDGathman>Part of the formal way is to record the contributions on the web site - a slightly more tangible thankyou.
18:56<alex_b>agree with the motion
18:57<Julian>OK, motion passes unanimously.
18:57<SDGathman>We could also take up a pizza money collection, but might get into an argument over PayPal vs. ....
18:58<Julian>Motion: The 2007 council thanks the former members of the council, William Leibzon, Mark Kramer, Mark Shewmaker, and invites them to remain with the project and act as advisors to the new council. They shall retain posting access to the spf-council mailing list, read+posting access to the spf-private mailing list, and talking permission on the #spf-council IRC channel for at least one year.
18:58<ScottK>:58 - Yes.
18:58<alex_b>:58 yes
18:58<ScottK>and seconded
18:58<SDGathman>1858 yes
18:58<xyzzy>:58 yes
18:58<Julian>1858 yes
18:58<Julian>Motion passed unanimously.
18:59*ScottK has an additional point that relates to this motion once we are done...
18:59<Julian>OK
18:59<ScottK>Wayne Schlitt (grumpy) has provided a lot of good advice.
19:00<xyzzy>sure, he should stay invited
19:00<ScottK>Based on that (and on him being the RFC 4408 author that's active in the community) I think he should retain those accesses too.
19:00*ScottK will type motion...
19:00<Julian>ScottK: Please do.
19:00*Julian is wording the next (last) motion about the support teams meanwhile.
19:00*xyzzy forgot the one year timeout for this issue
19:01<ScottK>Motion: Wayne Schlitt (grumpy) is invited to remain with the project and act as an advisor to the new council. He shall retain posting access to the spf-council mailing list, read+posting access to the spf-private mailing list, and talking permission on the #spf-council IRC channel for at least one year.
19:01<alex_b>19:01:25 yes
19:01<ScottK>:01 yes.
19:01<Julian>19:01 yes
19:01<xyzzy>:01 yes + seconded
19:01<SDGathman>1901 yes
19:02<Julian>Motion passes unanimously.
19:02*Julian is still wording...
19:03<xyzzy>SDGathman, what's your time zone?
19:04<SDGathman>EST
19:04<xyzzy>No PST, good (1500 UTC is quite early for you)
19:05<alex_b>that's 09:00am, isn't it?
19:05<alex_b>or 08:00 ?
19:05<ScottK>10:00AM
19:05<ScottK>For EST.
19:05<Julian>Draft motion (let's discuss this briefly first): The 2007 council thanks the project's support teams who are spending their free time on answering help requests submitted through the contact form and the spf-help mailing list! The 2007 council intends to ensure adequate staffing of the support teams by attracting new volunteers in order to keep the team members' burden low.
19:05<Julian>Anyone want to modify this?
19:06*ScottK thinks alex_b will vote for that one.
19:06<alex_b>I think I shouldn't participate in this topic
19:06<ScottK>I'll note for those that don't know that alex_b have been shouldering a huge fraction of the support ticket burden recently.
19:06<Julian>alex_b: Why not? If I suddenly started helping with the ticket system, should I stop voting on this, too?
19:06<Julian>Anyway, if you think you should abstain, it is of course your right.
19:07<alex_b>I'd like to see some changes, some of which I know are controversial
19:07<xyzzy>I like the draft (can't judge the ticket system, though)
19:08<Julian>alex_b: Changes in the motion or in the support team operation?
19:08<ScottK>I don't like the word ensure.
19:08<ScottK>We aren't in a position to ensure anything.
19:08<Julian>ScottK: What wording would you prefer?
19:09<ScottK>... intends to work towards adequate ... How about that?
19:09<Julian>Fine with me.
19:09<xyzzy>How about "intends to help attract" ?
19:09<ScottK>Fine.
19:09<alex_b>On the motion: I am not going to thank myself. About the ticketing system: I don't think now is the right place and time.
19:09<Julian>alex_b: Agreed about changes to the ticketing system.
19:10<alex_b>of course: more help is fine
19:10<SDGathman>"intends to promote"
19:10<Julian>Promote what?
19:10<SDGathman>adequate staffing
19:10<SDGathman>by attracting ...
19:10<Julian>OK, here's another draft:
19:10<xyzzy>alex_b: If all help list posters abstain it would be odd :-)
19:11<Julian>Let's split the motions.
19:11<ScottK>That would leave, I think Julian to vote.
19:11<SDGathman>I hate the nebuchadnezzars...
19:11<Julian>(real) Motion: The 2007 council thanks the project's support teams who are spending their free time on answering help requests submitted through the contact form and the spf-help mailing list!
19:12<ScottK>:11 seconded and yes.
19:12<Julian>Other votes?
19:12<SDGathman>1911 yes
19:12<Julian>19:11 yes
19:12<xyzzy>:11 yes
19:12<Julian>alex_b: abstain, I assume?
19:12<alex_b>ack
19:12<ScottK>I'll just add that I think this is probably the most important project function we have right now.
19:12<Julian>Motion passes.
19:13<xyzzy>ScottK, no, the test suite etc. are also good
19:13<alex_b>agree
19:13<ScottK>Others are also good, but support is #1 IMO.
19:13<ScottK>No need to argue about it here/now.
19:13*alex_b would welcome a separate discussion about this soon
19:13<xyzzy>ACK
19:13<ScottK>Yes.
19:13<Julian>Draft motion: The 2007 council intends to make for adequate staffing of the support teams by attracting new volunteers in order to keep the team members' burden low.
19:14<Julian>Any changes desired?
19:14*ScottK thinks you are missing a word.
19:14<SDGathman>"intends to promote"
19:14<xyzzy>It's not really "staff", they're volunteers, aren't they ?
19:14<Julian>ScottK: My dictionary says that "to make for sth." is a common idiom.
19:15<ScottK>Julian: It sounds awkward to me.
19:15<Julian>OK
19:15<SDGathman>Or just leafve it out: "The 2007 council intends to attract new support volunteers to keep team members burden low."
19:15<ScottK>... intends to recruit additional volunteers of the ...
19:15<ScottK>What SDGathman said is fine with me.
19:16*xyzzy too
19:16<Julian>Draft motion: The 2007 council intends to attract additional volunteers for the support teams in order to keep the team members' burden low.
19:16<ScottK>:16 seconded and yes.
19:16<xyzzy>seconded
19:16<xyzzy>:16 yes
19:16<alex_b>:16 yes
19:16<SDGathman>1916 yes
19:16<Julian>19:16 yes
19:16<Julian>Motion passes unanimously.
19:16<Julian>Great!
19:16<Julian>Does anyone want to thank anyone else?
19:17<alex_b>small footnote about possible changes to be discusses perhaps?
19:17<ScottK>That's fine.
19:17*ScottK types motion
19:17<Julian>alex_b: I added it to my personal council TODO list.
19:18<Julian>It should be brought up again at a future meeting.
19:18<xyzzy>What's that about? You lost me.
19:18*ScottK agrees with Julian and stops typing the motion.
19:19<alex_b>xyzzy: the talk about support; alex_b would welcome a separate discussion about this soon
19:19<Julian>OK, I see no requests for any further expressions of thanks.
19:19<Julian>3. Positions within the council? Chairman, Secretary, etc.?
19:20<Julian>What positions should the new council have? Should it have any in the first place?
19:20<ScottK>It appeared to me that the latter part of the 2006 council didn't really have strong formal roles and that seemed to work fine.
19:21<Julian>I think the new council should have a chairman who prepares (though not necessarily moderates) the meetings.
19:21<xyzzy>Motion: Keep the Chair
19:21<ScottK>We might have a Chair whose job it is to schedule meetings, bring them to order, and adjourn them, but I think that's all we really need.
19:21*ScottK types a motion
19:21<alex_b>and preferably someone with experience from the past
19:21<Julian>ScottK: Wait a minute (or mark it as a draft motion).
19:23<ScottK>Draft Motion: The 2007 council shall have a chairman who prepares (but does not moderate) the meetings). The Chair's role is do solict agenda inputs, is to schedule meetings, bring them to order, and adjourn them.
19:23<ScottK>Modulo the extra close parens.
19:23<ScottK>do/to
19:23*ScottK does it again...
19:23<xyzzy>without the "(but...)", correct?
19:23<ScottK>Draft Motion: The 2007 council shall have a chairman who prepares (but does not moderate) the meetings. The Chair's role is to solict agenda inputs, schedule meetings, bring them to order, and adjourn them.
19:24<ScottK>Comments/changes?
19:24<xyzzy>I don't get the (but..) part
19:24<Julian>OK, since this motion doesn't preclude the possibility of having other positions, I think I can agree to it without spelling out my other thoughts immediately.
19:25<ScottK>xyzzy: Chair doesn't get to prevent people from talking. During the discussion we are all equal.
19:25<Julian>I think the "(but does not moderate)" part is redundant if not slightly incorrect.
19:25*xyzzy too
19:25*ScottK is open to wording changes.
19:25<ScottK>I don't mind if that comes out.
19:25<Julian>Some moderation is good, but it doesn't (always) have to be done by the chair.
19:25<alex_b>just remove (..)
19:25<Julian>Yeah.
19:26<ScottK>OK. I'll do a real motion now.
19:26<Julian>Yup.
19:26<ScottK>Motion: The 2007 council shall have a chairman who prepares the meetings. The Chair's role is to solict agenda inputs, schedule meetings, bring them to order, and adjourn them.
19:26<xyzzy>ScottK, yes, unnecesary to talk about it in the motion
19:26<Julian>19:26 seconded
19:27<Julian>Votes?
19:27<ScottK>:26 yes
19:27<xyzzy>:26 yes
19:27<Julian>19:26 yes
19:27<SDGathman>1926yes
19:27<alex_b>:26 yes
19:27<Julian>Motion passes unanimously.
19:27*ScottK nominates Julian to be chair.
19:27<Julian>OK, here are my "other thoughts":
19:27<alex_b>:(
19:27<alex_b>:)
19:27<Julian>Wait. Let's first create the positions and then pick persons.
19:27<ScottK>OK
19:28<Julian>There's meeting agenda item #4, "Solicit a reporter/summarizer within the council", which I think potentially relates to the council positions. I think we should have someone who summarizes the meetings and other work of the council and presents it to spf-discuss regularly. Not wanting to pat myself on the back at all, but I thought that the meeting reports I made to spf-discuss in 2005 were very valuable in order to keep conne
19:28<Julian>cted to the community.
19:29<ScottK>I agree that they were valuable, but also they took a lot of time to do.
19:29<xyzzy>Yeah, your minutes were good
19:29*ScottK is really awful at note taking and would be completely unsuitable for such a position.
19:30<Julian>The summarizing doesn't necessarily have to be done by someone of the council. Someone outside the council could do it , but then he'd have to inquire council members for "unclassified" reports of what happened on the spf-private list, for example. (As unfortunate as it may be to have certain stuff going on in private, we haven't managed to avoid it entirely in the past.)
19:30<Julian><Julian> The summarizing doesn't necessarily have to be done by someone of the council. Someone outside the council could do it , but then he'd have to inquire council members for "unclassified" reports of what happened on the spf-private list, for example. (As unfortunate as it may be to have certain stuff going on in private, we haven't managed to avoid it entirely in the past.)
19:30<alexb>oops, lost the program
19:30<alexb>what did I miss?
19:31<Julian>alexb: Just what I repeated for you above.
19:31<alexb>thx
19:31<ScottK>I'm perfectly willing to have someone do that job, but am not willing to do it myself.
19:31<ScottK>Does anyone volunteer?
19:31<ScottK>I don't think we should have a position we can't fill.
19:32<Julian>In effect, I think it would be good if someone of the council (as opposed to someone outside it) would do it.
19:32<ScottK>I agree.
19:32<Julian>I would volunteer. I'd prefer not to be the chairman anyway.
19:32*ScottK looks around.
19:33<alexb>this is all new to me. I prefer if someone else does it.
19:33<xyzzy>Oops, I don't agree with Julian not wanting to be the Chair
19:33<Julian>I seem to have had some trouble with getting meetings organized reliably in the past. It may have been the past councils, but it may just as well have been me.
19:33<ScottK>Since we have a volunteer, I'm OK with the position.
19:33<SDGathman>I voted for Julian so he could be chairman again.
19:33<ScottK>No reason someone can't do both if they have the time.
19:34<Julian>ScottK: I'd strongly prefer to having to do both.
19:34<Julian>ScottK: I'd strongly prefer NOT to having to do both.
19:34<ScottK>Julian: We have yet to have a council where at least one member didn't essentially vanish. Not your fault.
19:34<Julian>(Ahhh, screw my grammar!)
19:35<ScottK>Julian: Why don't you make a motion about this position and we'll move on.
19:35<alexb>We already have an agreed time for meetings
19:35<alexb>all we need is an agenda, right ?
19:35<alexb>do we need a chair?
19:35<Julian>Well, let me say it this way: I think the council has been _too_ disconnected from the community in the last 12-18 months, so unless someone else agrees to take on the summarizing part, I'm going to do it and refuse to be the chairman.
19:35<xyzzy>So far all Chairs had problems to collect their colleagues
19:36<alexb>xyzzy: in other words: what's the value of having one
19:36<Julian>I think that having a chairman is important, because someone needs to maintain an overview of the project agenda and what stuff needs to be handled by the council.
19:36<ScottK>It actually helps sometimes with dealing with outside entities too.
19:36<xyzzy>I'm not sure about your Wiki, but it should be possible to collect the resolutions with pointers to the log.
19:37<xyzzy>alexb, it's god for official statements etc.
19:37<xyzzy>s/god/good/
19:38<Julian>xyzzy: "collect the resolutions with pointers to the log" -- What do you mean by that?
19:38<xyzzy>The four motions today, links to the log as evidence, text,
19:38<Julian>I think keeping the list of resolutions up to date is slightly _less_ important than keeping in touch with the community.
19:39<Julian>OK, here's an idea:
19:40<ScottK>Draft Motion: The 2007 Council will have a Council Secretary whose job it is to record the work of the council and communicate it to the SPF community.
19:40<alexb>just to make sure I got it: that would be the position Julian wants, right?
19:40<ScottK>That's my though.
19:40<Julian>Provided we meet regularly (i.e. at least twice a month) for the first one or two months, I'd be willing to both be the chairman and do the summarizing during that time, giving someone else the chance to become accustomed with council proceedings and take over either of the jobs after that period.
19:40<ScottK>thought
19:40<xyzzy>IMO it's the job of the Council to resolve disputes in the Community, not to do its own thing
19:41<ScottK>xyzzy: Agreed.
19:41<ScottK>Julian: Sounds good.
19:41<SDGathman>Disputes like whether unknown-modifier is greedy?
19:41<xyzzy>BTW, I read the private list back to 100 days or so
19:42<xyzzy>SDGathman: yes
19:42<Julian>I think the council _should_ do some project steering. I think this approach has been quite successful especially in 2006: we managed to get a lot of stuff done due to the coherent planning.
19:43<Julian>Anyway, any other comments (besides ScottK's) on my 19:40 proposal?
19:44<xyzzy>Sure, but to some degree it's what you wanted to do as members of the Community (test suite, perl stuff, Web site)
19:44<Julian>xyzzy: True. I'm not saying that the council shouldn't be soliciting input and contributions from the community. (It should!)
19:45<ScottK>leading != ignoring input.
19:46<ScottK>Should I remake my motion then?
19:46<Julian>ScottK: Go ahead.
19:46<ScottK>Motion: The 2007 Council will have a Council Secretary whose job it is to record the work of the council and communicate it to the SPF community.
19:46<Julian>19:46 seconded
19:46<ScottK>:46 - yes
19:46<alexb>:46 yes
19:47<SDGathman>1946 yes
19:47<Julian>19:46 yes
19:47<xyzzy>:46 abstain
19:47<ScottK>Motion passes.
19:47<Julian>OK.
19:47<ScottK>Any other positions people think we need?
19:47<alexb>A spokesman
19:48<Julian>Now that this has been made into a formal position, I don't think that one person can occupy both positions simultaneously.
19:48<xyzzy>Nonen (CEO was for Meng)
19:48<Julian>What's a "nonen"?
19:48*ScottK agrees with xyzzy
19:48<ScottK>nonsense
19:48<SDGathman>I think Frank wants us to make some ex-cathedra pronouncements on authoritative RFC interpreation.
19:48<xyzzy>s/Nonen/None/ or No or so, sorry
19:48<ScottK>Sure. That's one of the things we need to do.
19:49<Julian>(grumpy: Could you please remember to update the IRC nicknames on the council IRC logs?)
19:49<Julian>I'm not sure I get what's being wanted right now...
19:50<xyzzy>No other positions from my POV
19:50<ScottK>Draft Motion: Julian is nominated to be the initial Council Chair and Recorder for the 2007 council until such time as he can convince one of us to replace him and the council votes for it.
19:50<alexb>We have position "Secretary". We have been discussing "Chairman" but did not yet agree. I suggested spokesman
19:50<ScottK>Sorry. Forget
19:50<ScottK>Forgot.
19:51<ScottK>What do you envision the spokesman to do?
19:51<alexb>I disagree one person cannot do two jobs
19:51<xyzzy>Chair + secretary or Spesman + secretary is okay
19:51<SDGathman>What would I have to do to be the summarizer?
19:51<Julian>alexb: But we _did_ vote on the chairman position: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html#20070209T1926
19:52<alexb>yep, sorry
19:52<Julian>SDGathman: Have you looked at the meeting minutes I did in 2005 (until I stopped doing them later that year for lack of time)?
19:52<Julian>I imagine something like that, perhaps slightly less extensive.
19:52<ScottK>http://www.openspf.org/Council_Meeting/2004-12-04 for example.
19:52<alexb>in that case: chairman can be spokesman
19:53<Julian>Personally, I'm not sure the council needs a spokesman. To whom would he speak?
19:53<xyzzy>To the announce list (example)
19:53<ScottK>Chair can do that after we agree on text.
19:53<SDGathman>So, I would create a wiki page for each meeting?
19:53<xyzzy>To the IESG (example)
19:54<Julian>xyzzy: Well, I think such announcements should be agreed on by the entire council.
19:54<ScottK>If we need a specific person/persons to go deal with some group, we can appoint them much as SDGathman and I ended up dealing with the BITS people last year.
19:54<Julian>SDGathman: Sort of. And report it to spf-discuss.
19:54<xyzzy>To the persons Wayne talked with elsewhere (example)
19:55<ScottK>People are free to evangelize SPF. If they speak for the council, we need to agree on what it is they will say. We can pick whoever will say it when the time comes if it's needed.
19:55<Julian>SDGathman: Imagine being a "plain" spf-discuss reader who is interested in the council's steering and deciding efforts. What would you like to know about that?
19:56<alexb>Julian: see 19:36 and 19:37 where I wondered why a chairman would be useful and xyzzy replied
19:56<SDGathman>I think I can take on writing a page for the meeting from that perspective. How soon is it due after the meeting?
19:56<alexb>xyzzy alexb, it's god for official statements etc.
19:57<Julian>OK, let me phrase it this way: I'd prefer not to have a single spokesman. I think every council member should try to speak for the entire project whenever he speaks in his role as a council member.
19:57<ScottK>Due dates are an amorphous concept among volunteers.
19:57*ScottK agrees with Julian
19:57<Julian>SDGathman: I'd say within a week.
19:58<xyzzy>Julian: yes, but "hat on" situations are probably very rare
19:59*ScottK agrees with xyzzy too.
19:59<Julian>SDGathman: E.g., I think that http://www.openspf.org/Council_Meeting/2005-05-18 was a very valuable summary for the spf-discuss readers.
20:00<ScottK>Just as a reminder, we have 30 minutes until I have to leave for about 30 minutes to pick up kids from school.
20:00*Julian notices that he misspelled "Scott" in one place.
20:01<ScottK>alexb: Do you still feel we need to appoint a spokesman?
20:01<xyzzy>Okay, let's nail it, Stuart, you try this summary thing ?
20:01<SDGathman>Yes, I'll do it for a while.
20:02<alexb>If we need a spokesman, the chairman can do it. If the majority feels we do not need a spokesman: fine with me
20:02<SDGathman>I'll follow Julian's format from 2005.
20:02<xyzzy>And Julian the Chair job ? Or isn't that what you said ?
20:02<Julian>SDGathman: Great! Thank you.
20:02<Julian>I'm not going to nominate myself.
20:02*ScottK nominates Julian for Chair.
20:02<Julian>ScottK: Can you make a motion?
20:02<alexb>seconded
20:02<SDGathman>Motion: Julian is the 2007 chair
20:03<ScottK>:02 second and yes
20:03<Julian>Votes?
20:03<xyzzy>I've already nominated you with "Keep the Chair" :-)
20:03<SDGathman>2002 yes
20:03<alexb>:02 yes
20:03<xyzzy>:02 yes
20:03<Julian>20:02 abstain
20:03<Julian>So be it. Motion passes.
20:03<ScottK>Motion: SDGathman is 2007 recorder.
20:03<Julian>Motion: Stuart shall be the secretary
20:03<Julian>Uh, OK.
20:04<xyzzy>:03 yes
20:04<Julian>Votes?
20:04<SDGathman>That just means the summary pages, right?
20:04<ScottK>:03 yes
20:04<Julian>Wait.
20:04<ScottK>SDGathman: Yes.
20:04<SDGathman>ok
20:04<xyzzy>yes, don't panic
20:04<alexb>two motions. Which are we voting on?
20:04<xyzzy>they're identical :-)
20:04<alexb>or recorder==secretary?
20:04<alexb>ah
20:04<alexb>ok
20:05<alexb>:03 yes
20:05<Julian>What about recording any lasting motions (not necessarily "The council thanks...", but _lasting_ stuff)?
20:05<Julian>From my experience, recording the lasting motions was significantly less work than doing the meeting summaries.
20:05*ScottK thinks that needs to be done.
20:06<ScottK>SDGathman: Are you OK with that too?
20:06<Julian>I could do it in my role as the chair if no one else wants to do it.
20:06<SDGathman>Will see when something "lasting" comes up.
20:06<ScottK>Sounds like it can be sorted out later. Let's move on.
20:06<xyzzy>Anybody can do, isn't it ?
20:07<Julian>SDGathman: Well, the appointments to the council positions would be a first example. The existing resolutions on that should be updated.
20:07<ScottK>Anyone with write access to the wiki, yes.
20:07<xyzzy>ScottK: I haven't tested that yet
20:07<SDGathman>I need to pick up my daughter.
20:08<Julian>Can we use 15 more minutes before we pause/adjourn?
20:08<SDGathman>I'll be back in 10 min...
20:08*ScottK can wait 15 minutes or be back in an hour. Either way.
20:09<alexb>all fine for me
20:09<Julian>ScottK: When do you have to go?
20:09<ScottK>Which is 5 minutes before I have to leave, so let's resume at 2100 UTC (in 51 minutes).
20:09<Julian>OK. Anyone disagree with resuming at 21:00 UTC?
20:09<alexb>not too long then
20:09<xyzzy>We're done with the agenda, Julian, what else, fire.
20:09<ScottK>There's one or two more items.
20:09<Julian>xyzzy: Not entirely.
20:10<Julian>Maybe we can handle some of the remaining stuff until Stuart gets back.
20:10<ScottK>OK
20:11<Julian>Are there any objections from alexb, xyzzy, or ScottK to mention their places of residence on the website (e.g. <http://www.openspf.org/Council_Members>)?
20:11<xyzzy>Yeah, what's it about ? My mixed feelings while reading "private" are something you can't know :-)
20:11<Julian>Oh, I see that Alex has already added his.
20:11<ScottK>From my perspective anyone who knows about whois knows where I live, so I'm not worried.
20:12<Julian>alexb: What city do you live in? Or would you prefer not to tell?
20:13<alexb>not secret, but also not relevant
20:13<xyzzy>It's fine. Can I replace mailto by http later ?
20:13<Julian>xyzzy: Certainly!
20:13<Julian>ScottK: "Ellicott City, MD"?
20:13<ScottK>Yes.
20:14<Julian>alexb: Any objections to being consistent with the past listings of cities?
20:14<alexb>I will add soon
20:14<Julian>OK, thanks.
20:15<alexb>done
20:15<Julian>Cool.
20:15<alexb>What's bigger: the Netherlands or Fairfax ?
20:15<ScottK>Netherlands
20:15<alexb>only slightly :)
20:16<alexb>what's next?
20:16<Julian>In the past, we had listed the "election platforms" of the council candidates on the website: http://www.openspf.org/Council_Election/2006-01
20:17<Julian>Are there any platforms that should be added to this year's election page. http://www.openspf.org/Council_Election/2007-01 ?
20:17<xyzzy>Got an "authorization filed", if the Wike insists on Digest-MD5 I'll scream
20:17*ScottK already wrote mine and I've also been statusing it.
20:17<Julian>I know _I_ had a "platform".
20:17<ScottK>Julian: IIRC you sent yours to spf-discuss.
20:17<Julian>xyzzy: Yes, the website (not the wiki software itself) insists on Digest Auth.
20:18<Julian>(I'm not going to add my platform if there aren't any others, though.)
20:18<xyzzy>Then I need TLS with Auth Basic
20:18<Julian>Hmm.
20:18<Julian>Your browser supports TLS (not SSL) but not Digest Auth?
20:18<ScottK>Frank: http://www.openspf.org/Scott_Kitterman
20:19<xyzzy>SSL is fine, Auth Basic is fine
20:19<Julian>Let me see (later) if I can arrange "HTTP+DigestAuth / HTTPS+BasicAuth".
20:19<Julian>So what platforms should be added (if any)?
20:19<xyzzy>Okay (same issue with the IETF tools server, even Lynx has no Auth Digest)
20:20<Julian>(I think w3m does.)
20:22<Julian>Let me be even more explicit: would anyone be willing to sift through spf-discuss looking for any election platforms, and link to them from http://www.openspf.org/Council_Election/2007-01 ?
20:22<xyzzy>You can add http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/22780
20:22<Julian>Good!
20:22<alexb>I didn't post any (sorry, had to lookup "platform")
20:22<xyzzy>until I have write access on the Wiki
20:23<ScottK>I don't think Stuart had one either.
20:23<Julian>OK, we can always add them later (just not _much_ later).
20:24<Julian>ScottK: Did you have one? Is it on the "Scott Kitterman" page?
20:24<ScottK>It's on that page.
20:24<Julian>ScottK: Thanks. If you need to leave, now's your chance! ;-)
20:25<ScottK>I've got a few minutes yet.
20:26<alexb>I think we're completely finished now?
20:27<xyzzy>Don't get me wrong, but what's the technical point of Auth: Digest fow Wiki write access ? IMO Basic is good enough, it's
20:27<Julian>alexb: No, we haven't appointed a secretary or summarizer yet.
20:27<xyzzy>a Wiki, it has revert
20:27<Julian>xyzzy: Well, the password is also used for svn access.
20:28<xyzzy>SVN also has revert (okay, lame)
20:28<Julian>Did Mark Shewmaker or Terry Fielder have election platforms?
20:28<alexb>@ScottK Motion: SDGathman is 2007 recorder.
20:28<alexb>@Julian Motion: Stuart shall be the secretary
20:29<ScottK>Stuart can pick his own title between those two as far as I'm concerned.
20:29<alexb>I voted yes
20:29<alexb>others?
20:29<alexb>xyzzy said: they're the same
20:29<xyzzy>Used to be "secretary"
20:29<ScottK>Secretary's fine with me.
20:29<ScottK>I vote yes for either one.
20:30<Julian>_If_ we have a "secretary", I think his job would also be to record the council's resolutions.
20:30*xyzzy too
20:30*ScottK would say actions rather the resolutios, but basically yes.
20:30<Julian>If Stuard doesn't want to do that (which is choice), then we shouldn't call the position "secretary". IMO.
20:30*xyzzy was replying to ScottK :-)
20:30<Julian>s/which is choice/which is his choice/
20:31<alexb>didn't scott need to go?
20:31<alexb>just a reminder!
20:31<SDGathman>Back
20:31<ScottK>I can stay 5 minutes if we can finish.
20:31<Julian>Cool.
20:32<Julian>I think we can.
20:32<xyzzy>Julian: we're all active on "discuss", unlike some former Council members
20:32<Julian>SDGathman: Would you be willing to record the council's lasting resolutions as well? If yes, I'd say we call the position "secretary", otherwise I'd go for something else.
20:33<SDGathman>If I don't have to decide which are "lasting", and Julian has already established a format, I can update the list.
20:33<Julian>Cool.
20:33*Julian phrases a motion.
20:34<Julian>Repeating from earlier:
20:34<Julian><ScottK> Motion: The 2007 Council will have a Council Secretary whose job it is to record the work of the council and communicate it to the SPF community.
20:34<Julian>That motion was passed.
20:35<Julian>Motion: Stuart shall be the 2007 council secretary.
20:35<Julian>SDGathman: Any objections?
20:35<ScottK>2nd and yes to :35
20:35<alexb>:35 - yes
20:35<SDGathman>I will summarize, and update "lasting" resolutions, yes.
20:35<xyzzy>:35 yes (wrong window, soory)
20:35<SDGathman>1935 abstain
20:35<Julian>19:35 yes
20:36<SDGathman>2035 abstain
20:36<Julian>Uh, right, that was 20:35.
20:36<SDGathman>I hate DST
20:36<Julian>Motion passes.
20:36*ScottK has to go.
20:36<Julian>SDGathman: Thank you!
20:36<SDGathman>Motion: meeting adjurned
20:36<ScottK>Feel free to adjorn if you finish before I get back.
20:36<Julian>20:36 seconded
20:36<SDGathman>2036 yes
20:36<xyzzy>:36 yes
20:36<Julian>20:36 yes
20:37<ScottK>:36 yes
20:37<alexb>:36 yes; rq to stay a minute for informal talk
20:37<Julian>The meeting is hereby adjourned!
20:37<Julian>Thanks everyone!
20:37*Julian stays here.
20:37<ScottK>alexb: Informal talk should be on #spf
20:37<Julian>Not necessarily, provided it's council talk.
20:38<Julian>Remember that #spf-council gets logged to the spf-council mailing list.
20:38*ScottK already left so he didn't hear you.
20:38<alexb>It's about the support channels
20:38<xyzzy>Okay, I seriously hope that Wiki write access without Digest-MD5 can be arranged
20:38<Julian>xyzzy: I'll look into it in a few minutes.
20:38<alexb>going to #spf
20:40*xyzzy too

This report was generated at Fri Feb 9 23:59:59 UTC 2007.