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/2007/02/17_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 Feb 17 16:06:59 UTC 2007 ---
16:06<Julian>grumpy: Are you there?
16:08<Julian>ScottK: Are you there?
16:12<SDGathman>Hello
16:13<Julian>hi all!
16:13<alex_b>hi everybody, seems we're complete now
16:13<Julian>ScottK: ping
16:15<SDGathman>Crumble, I haven't done the summary yet.
16:16<Julian>SDGathman: Not a big problem. I don't think we'll be meeting every week in the future. There's just a lot of stuff to do at the term's beginning so the meetings are a bit crowded these days. It will pass.
16:17<Julian>ScottK: Can we start?
16:17<frank>SDGathman: [[Council_Meeting/2007-02-09]] will do, maybe add some details
16:18*alex_b sent mail to scott
16:18<ScottK>Yeah
16:18<ScottK>Sorry. Got held up be real life.
16:18<ScottK>be/by
16:19<Julian>OK, let's start.
16:19<Julian>Meeting agenda: http://archives.listbox.com/spf-council/200702/0029.html
16:19<Julian>1. Send a news message to spf-discuss and/or spf-announce? Issue a joint SPF/Ubuntu press release? (Scott)
16:19<ScottK>Should I start then?
16:19<Julian>Yeah.
16:20<ScottK>As I think most of you know I've put a fair amount of effort into getting RFC 4408 compliant SPF checking into the next Ubuntu release
16:20<ScottK>It's sched for April.
16:20<ScottK>Their preferred MTA is Postfix and I've got both Perl and Python solutions in for that release.
16:21<ScottK>AFAIK, this will be the first Linux distribution to have RFC 4408 compliant SPF checking available through their package management system.
16:22<ScottK>They have a marketing group and so I think it would make sense to approach them and see if they would be interested in some kind of joint announcement or at least to make sure SPF checking gets mentioned in their release announcement.
16:22<ScottK>Unless anyone has objections, I'll go work on that.
16:22<ScottK>Questions?
16:22<Julian>Also, we may want to make a general news announcement to spf-announce or at least spf-discuss about any current news, our SPF packaging (Ubuntu, ...) efforts, the new council's project agenda (see meeting agenda item #2), and the council election outcome.
16:22<SDGathman>Sounds good.
16:23<Julian>Sort of what we did early last year... *searching in the archives*
16:23*ScottK was thinking if we did a joint announcement with Ubuntu it would be put out on spf-announce when the distribution was released.
16:23<Julian>http://archives.listbox.com/spf-announce/200605/0001.html
16:23<alex_b>or just before
16:24<Julian>(not exactly "early last year", though)
16:24<ScottK>I think we should do something like that soon (and not wait until April/May)
16:25<Julian>I already told Scott: I'm not sure whether Ubuntu would want to make an announcement just about SPF. I think they probably want to announce their distro release and perhaps include a paragraph on SPF. We could do sort of the reverse.
16:25<ScottK>I also think we should do a seperate announcement for Ubuntu (and FreeBSD when gmc thinks he's ready).
16:25<alex_b>soon: spf expected to arrive in ubuntu
16:25<Julian>I agree about making an announcement a lot sooner than April/May.
16:25<ScottK>Julian: Yes. Exactly.
16:25<alex_b>april: ubuntu spf ready
16:26<alex_b>announce on spf-announce and perhaps also spf-discuss
16:26<ScottK>Both
16:26<alex_b>and website ofcourse
16:26<ScottK>Yes.
16:26<ScottK>WRT Ubuntu, the current action is for me to go see what interest I can muster. Any objections?
16:26*alex_b has no objections
16:26<Julian>So what would we have to do right now? (1) Contact Ubuntu people and learn their preferences, (2) prepare a standalone news announcement for spf-{announce,discuss}?
16:26*frank fine
16:27<Julian>ScottK: Very good!
16:27<ScottK>Julian: Yes and I will take care of #1.
16:27<Julian>OK. I'll start an initiative for collecting news items for #2 then.
16:27<ScottK>Excellent.
16:28<ScottK>On this note, we still need someone to work RPM packaging for Fedora (anyone?)
16:28<frank>we're talking about two announcements, right?
16:28<ScottK>frank: One now on project status one later when/near the Ubuntu release.
16:28<frank>okay
16:29<SDGathman>I've published packages.
16:29<SDGathman>On sourceforge.
16:29<Julian>SDGathman: What packages?
16:29<ScottK>Yes, but someone needs to get them submitted to Fedora.
16:29<SDGathman>pyspf, python-pyspf
16:29<SDGathman>I'm not familiar with the procedure for getting them into Fedora.
16:29<Julian>What's the relation between SF and the Python Cheeseshop?
16:29<SDGathman>None.
16:30<Julian>So they're redundant?
16:30<SDGathman>I copy to both.
16:30<Julian>OK.
16:30<SDGathman>Cheeseshop usually isn't much interested in RPMs or CVS. Sourceforge likes RPMS and CVS.
16:30<Julian>SDGathman: Can I talk to you about the test suite for a few minutes later?
16:30<ScottK>Python Cheeseshop is important because it's a bridge for pyspf between where Terrence Way published pyspf and where Stuart publishes it since he took it over.
16:30<SDGathman>Both like tarballs.
16:31<ScottK>I think that's all I had on that topic.
16:31<Julian>OK, anything else to discuss about news announcements or PRs?
16:31<Julian>If you have something, type "..." quickly.
16:32<frank>...
16:32<frank>If there's anyway an announcement let's note the new https feature enabled by Julian
16:33<Julian>frank: Why do you think it is important?
16:33<ScottK>I think that's a good point.
16:33<frank>for anybody interested in #4
16:33<Julian>Personally, I doubt that anyone not involved in editing the site really cares.
16:33*ScottK prefers to never submit passwords of any kind unencrypted.
16:33<frank>s/4/5/ sorry
16:33<Julian>ScottK: That's why we're using Digest Auth on http: (not https:).
16:34<ScottK>Maybe that should just get announced on webmasters (if it didn't already).
16:34<ScottK>Julian: OK
16:34<Julian>frank: Let's rehash the "HTTPS announcement" issue later when we discuss #5, OK?
16:35<frank>+1
16:35<Julian>So...
16:35<Julian>2. Refresh the project agenda. Do it right here and now?
16:35<Julian>The project agenda is here: http://www.openspf.org/Project_Agenda
16:35<Julian>I think we're now well into getting SPF into more MTAs and distros. A lot still needs to be done, but nonetheless...
16:36<alex_b>We already started late, can we please set an end time for this?
16:36*alex_b suggests 17:50 max
16:36<Julian>Well, the main question is whether we want to work on the agenda right here and now in the first place, or move the discussion on this issue to the council mailing list?
16:37*ScottK has read it over and finds it pretty good.
16:37*ScottK suggests council mailing list.
16:37*alex_b agrees
16:37<Julian>SDGathman, frank?
16:37<ScottK>Is anyone working on "Start a grassroots "Spread SPF!" campaign to get in touch with domain owners and ESPs/ISPs."?
16:38<frank>list is fine
16:38<Julian>ScottK: AFAICT, not yet. But I definitely will be doing something about it this year.
16:38<frank>Scott
16:38<ScottK>OK. Sounds good.
16:38<ScottK>Yes?
16:38<Julian>Of course I'd love others to join the effort.
16:38<SDGathman>I don't see "dealing with alleged errata".
16:39<SDGathman>That should be on the agenda for this year.
16:39<ScottK>Why don't you add it on the wiki and then we can discuss on the list as necessary.
16:39<frank>We talk about it where we are, ASRG, Spamcop list, EAI are my examples
16:39<Julian>"EAI"?
16:40<frank>EAI is the IETF WG doing UTF8SMTP
16:40<Julian>Oh.
16:41<Julian>OK, so everyone please submit your thoughts about the project agenda to spf-council, CC: spf-discuss.
16:41<Julian>(under a common thread, so someone better start a thread with a good subject line)
16:41<ScottK>Sounds good.
16:41<frank>In the next days, right?
16:41<SDGathman>Another issue is improved instructions for forwarders. "Just do SRS" doesn't cut it. They need to protect their reputation.
16:41<ScottK>SDGathman: Sounds like something to bring up on the mailing list.
16:41<alex_b>Indeed
16:42<alex_b>the discuss mailing list that is
16:42<Julian>BTW, I could see having distinct working groups of our own in the SPF community.
16:42<Julian>(distinct and _definite_ WGs, that is)
16:42<Julian>(i.e. each having a defined core group of workers)
16:43<Julian>Anyway...
16:43<ScottK>3. How to process queued errata?
16:43<Julian>So we decided to move discussion about the project agenda to spf-{council,discuss}, so let's move on.
16:43<Julian>Right.
16:44<ScottK>If anyone has a recommendation on this, please type ... so the rest of us know.
16:44<Julian>...
16:44*ScottK waits.
16:44<frank>The collection isn't complete AFAIK. Let's put it into a draft
16:45<Julian>I think we should start one thread per erratum on spf-discuss and try to form a consensus on each.
16:45<frank>Let the RFC-editor link to that draft
16:45<SDGathman>There is a hierarchy to the errata.
16:45<Julian>I don't think we should start a RFC 4408bis draft just yet.
16:45<SDGathman>The keystone is "greedy unknown-modifier". Several remaining points hinge on that decision.
16:45<Julian>There are "errata" and there are "FOObis" documents. I'm not yet convinced that we need a 4408bis document.
16:46<frank>The errata aren't 4408bis
16:46<ScottK>The key, I think is to quickly sort stuff into "erratum to go to the RFC editor" and "Good idea for next time".
16:46<SDGathman>Needs to be done before spec authors get run over by a bus.
16:47<frank>Of course we need 408bis later (before 2008), but later
16:47<SDGathman>Ideally, any errata should have the approval of at least one spec author, plus a super majority (4+) of the council.
16:47<Julian>Sounds good.
16:47<ScottK>+1
16:47<frank>NAK, what's that 4+ ?
16:47<alex_b>4 or 5
16:47<SDGathman>Supermajority (at least 4)
16:47<Julian>5 is too many.
16:48<Julian>4 is a rough consensus.
16:48*alex_b means: 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 5 are both OK.
16:48<Julian>Perhaps we could say that one of those 4 could be a spec author (i.e. Wayne)?
16:48<alex_b>Or won't you approve if all 5 agree?
16:48<frank>Rough consensus is a magic word, not a number
16:49<Julian>frank: Only because you usually don't know how large your constituency is.
16:49<frank>That's the case for the SPF Community
16:49<ScottK>BTW, I think that it's not only the Council that counts for rough consensus
16:49<Julian>Absolutely.
16:50<ScottK>4 of 5 votes on the council to agree that there is rough consensus in the broader community.
16:50<Julian>The thing is, some of the errata are controversial, and we need a way not to have debates going on endlessly.
16:50*ScottK is extraordinarily unlikely to vote for something grumpy or freeside don't like, so doesn't feel a need for a special rule for them.
16:51<ScottK>So we also need a 'not erratum' page.
16:51<SDGathman>I would like to propose a principle for judging errata...
16:51*alex_b believes we (the council) are here to represent the community. If I notice a majority of the community agrees on something, I won't vote for the opposite...
16:51<frank>If it's too controversial there's no rough consensus, but that's not related to majorities in the Council
16:51<Julian>_If_ we're going to do an errata document or even an RFC 4408bis one, we need to do it soon. Work on SPFv3 should start soon so it can be presented next year.
16:51<SDGathman>The principle of minimal changes to the spec. The more deletions/additions required for a fix, the worse the fix is.
16:52<Julian>"Not erratum" => FAQ.
16:52<ScottK>OK
16:53<SDGathman>If the minimal fix isn't ideal - that should be improved in SPFv3
16:53*ScottK will make a draft motion...
16:53*Julian was going to but will now wait for ScottK's.
16:54<ScottK>Draft Motion: RFC 4408 erratum will be discussed in the SPF community (spf-discuss and spf-devel) prior to council consideration. Erratum approved by at least 4 of 5 council members will be forwarded to the RFC editor via one of the RFC authors.
16:54<ScottK>Comments?
16:55<alex_b>valid if # of council members stays 5
16:55<frank>Don't like it.
16:55<alex_b>at least 75%
16:55<ScottK>frank: What do you want?
16:55<Julian>s/of 5//
16:55<Julian>alex_b: 75% of what?
16:56<ScottK>frank?
16:56<alex_b>Julian: at least 75% of all council members
16:56<frank>A simple collection of errata under our control (Our=community + council for disputes), + a link from the RFC-editor to this document
16:56<Julian>alex_b: That'll always be 4. Or what do you mean?
16:57<alex_b>see :55 "valid if # of council members stays 5"
16:57<Julian>I object to _anyone_ being able to edit the list of (prospective) errata.
16:57<ScottK>frank: What about the official RFC editor erratum list?
16:57<frank>No new majority definitions please
16:58<SDGathman>Need 4 or 5 council member PLUS at least one spec author to approve.
16:58<frank>RFC 2616 (HHTP) has "outsourced" errata
16:58<SDGathman>Because "original intent" is best judged by a spec author.
16:58<Julian>FTR: Not all errata can be judged according to "original intent".
16:59<alex_b>Stuart: this can be a problem
16:59<SDGathman>It might require a fix, yes.
16:59<frank>I'm fine with "at least one author", but not supermajorities
16:59<ScottK>If frank objects to a supermajority rule, then I think we ought to not do that.
16:59<ScottK>So I'd say council motion plus one author.
16:59<Julian>Well, I remember having had a 3:2 majority on a controversial issue in 2005, and it wasn't good...
17:00<alex_b>Julian: agree
17:00<ScottK>But since we have plus one author it'd really have to be 4:2.
17:00<SDGathman>If we can't get 4+ and spec author to agree, then we just leave it ambiguous.
17:00<ScottK>And in any case supermajority requirements lead to deadlock.
17:00<SDGathman>And leave it out of the test suite - or allow alternative answers.
17:01<alex_b>scenario:
17:01<Julian>I think 3:2 plus one mandatory spec author is OK.
17:01<alex_b>wayne and meng both on the council
17:01<ScottK>alex_b: They aren't on the council and any new council can have new rules.
17:02<alex_b>ok. I'll shut up
17:02<ScottK>Maybe Julian makes a motion this time...
17:02<Julian>...
17:04<Julian>Draft Motion: RFC 4408 erratum will be discussed in the SPF community (spf-discuss), followed by council consideration. Any erratum approved by a majority (3+) of council members plus at least one of the RFC authors (Wayne, Meng) will be forwarded to the RFC editor.
17:04<Julian>Anyone want to change something substantial?
17:04<frank>...
17:04<ScottK>The only question I would have would be frank's idea about outsourced errata.
17:04<Julian>What's "outsourced" errata?
17:05<ScottK>See frank at :58
17:05<frank>Yes, let's try to build our own collection, and when it's in a good state try to get a link from them to our document.
17:05<Julian>Oh, that.
17:05<Julian>Interesting concept.
17:06<Julian>Is that codified somewhere in the IETF rules?
17:06<frank>My 2069 erratum is stil pending (about two years), the're horribly slow
17:07<frank>No rule, the complete errata idea is an RFC-editor thing
17:07<Julian>OK.
17:07<frank>An author (say Wayne) could ask them to set the link
17:08*ScottK likes that better.
17:08*ScottK types a motion.
17:08<Julian>(Real) Motion: Any RFC 4408 errata will be discussed in the SPF community (spf-discuss), followed by council consideration. Any erratum approved by a majority (3+) of council members plus at least one of the RFC authors (Wayne, Meng) will be forwarded to the RFC editor or put up as on an "outsourced" errata list for RFC 4408.
17:09<ScottK>Seconded and yes
17:09<Julian>s/put up as on/put up on/
17:09<ScottK>for :08
17:09<Julian>Votes for 17:08?
17:09<alex_b>:08 yes
17:09<frank>:08 yes
17:09<SDGathman>1709 yes
17:09<Julian>17:08: yes
17:09<Julian>So ordered.
17:09<ScottK>Second motion...
17:11<ScottK>Motion: The council will ask Wayne and/or Meng to set a url on the openspf.org web site to be the official erratum list. Only council members/RFC authors will have write access to the list and none will modify the list until erratum are approved per the previous motion.
17:11<Julian>Wait.
17:11<frank>s/set a url/use a document/
17:11<Julian>"Only council members/RFC authors will have write access to the list" -- This may prove slightly difficult with the current website. There are others who have write access and who would be difficult to exclude, like Koen.
17:12<Julian>Perhaps this just needs to be reworded slightly.
17:12<ScottK>OK.
17:12<alex_b>use "are authorized"
17:12<Julian>Good!
17:12<Julian>ScottK: Can you reiterate?
17:12<ScottK>...
17:13<ScottK>Motion: The council will ask Wayne and/or Meng to set a location on the openspf.org web site to be the official erratum list. Only council members/RFC authors are authorized to modify the list and none will modify the list until erratum are approved per the previous motion.
17:13<frank>Anybody with write access can write, it's a Wiki. But the errata would reflect an SPF draft in svn/project/specs/draft
17:14<ScottK>frank: That's why I said location so it can be a document/whatever we decided.
17:14<ScottK>decide.
17:14<Julian>Wiki wiki whatever. It's a website, period.
17:14<Julian>Yes, it can be a Subversion resource.
17:14<alex_b>:13 yes
17:14<Julian>17:13 seconded.
17:14<Julian>Votes on 17:13?
17:14<ScottK>Yes
17:14<frank>:13 yes
17:14<Julian>17:13 yes
17:15<SDGathman>1713 yes
17:15<Julian>So ordered.
17:15<Julian>Great, so we do have a plan!
17:15<Julian>4. How public should the "draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit Analysis" page <http://www.openspf.org/draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis> be? (Wayne/Julian)
17:15<Julian>Let me explain briefly.
17:15<ScottK>grumpy: Are you around?
17:15<Julian>...
17:16*ScottK doesn't think we should decide anything without grumpy as he is the one that had concerns.
17:16<alex_b>But we can discuss, right?
17:16<alex_b>I don't see a problem...
17:16<alex_b>better data leads to better information...
17:16*ScottK waits for Julian's ...
17:17<alex_b>if we don't publish, people will read FUD instead of information
17:17<Julian>...
17:17<frank>Did anybody here read Doug's latest visions on the ASRG list?
17:17<SDGathman>The recent DNS DOS attack on root servers was via SPF, right? ;-)
17:17<ScottK>SDGathman: Where did you hear that?
17:18<ScottK>frank: No. Is there a url for the archive?
17:18<Julian>SDGathman is joking.
17:18*ScottK is glad to hear that.
17:18<frank>wait a moment
17:18*ScottK waits for Julian and frank...
17:18<Julian>A few weeks back, I took the initiative and finished the "draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit Analysis" page that I had started several months ago. This is (essentially) how the page looked after I and Scott edited the page: http://www.openspf.org/auth?action=browse&id=draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis&revision=17
17:19<SDGathman>The main point is that SPF is no worse than any other DNS RR - better, in fact, because of the MAX 10 limits.
17:19*ScottK things frank will want https://www.openspf.org/auth?action=browse&id=draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis&revision=17
17:19<frank>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/11995
17:19*ScottK looks.
17:19<Julian>Wayne and William then objected to listing the examples of how to reproduce a similar DoS attack with non-SPF RRs, and William edited the page as follows: http://www.openspf.org/auth?action=browse&diff=1&id=draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis&revision=18&diffrevision=17
17:20<frank>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/12003
17:20<Julian>Personally, I don't see why we should _not_ publish those examples, as they make our point much clearer, and the issue isn't really a secret anyway.
17:21<frank>Apparently the MAAWG rejected Doug's latest SPF slides
17:21<Julian>"Apparently" -- how do you know?
17:21<Julian>And, could you please summarize "Doug's latest visions on the ASRG list"?
17:22<frank>He said it in the thread, do you want an URL?
17:22<Julian>No. I would like a summary.
17:23<frank>No, I'm not up to summarize Doug's reasoning, because it isn't reasonable from my POV.
17:23<Julian>URL of what? Of his slides? I can imagine what's in them. I'd prefer to know how you know that his slides were rejected by MAAWG.
17:23<ScottK>Julian: I read the link that frank provided and it reads like the same old story to me.
17:24<Julian>Right. I thought that "DougO's latest visions" referred to something _new_. Maybe it didn't.
17:24<frank>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/11982 started the thread, it contains the MAAWG bit.
17:24<ScottK>My bottom line on the issue is that grumpy is the one that had objections and I respect his opinion enough that I'd like to hear from him that he's satisfied with the revisions or why not.
17:25<ScottK>Modulo some time limit on grumpy being MIA.
17:25<alex_b>Can you give a hint about what makes him doubt?
17:26<alex_b>and/or: maybe start meeting agenda #5, and return here later
17:26<ScottK>What Julian said at :19 captures his concern. What I don't know is if the later edits satisfied it.
17:26<SDGathman>There are real DNS based DOS attacks taking place. Grumpy doesn't want to provide free recipies to the bad guys.
17:27<Julian>SDGathman: But the recipies are already out in the wild. The only solution is to fix them, not desparately trying to hide them.
17:28<SDGathman>True. It would be convient if the latest attack was known to be an example comparable to SPF and Franks examples.
17:28<SDGathman>I didn't see what the source was.
17:28<ScottK>alex_b: Do you have a time limit coming up soon?
17:29<alex_b>ScottK: stopping at 1800Z would be nice
17:29<ScottK>OK.
17:29<alex_b>no true limit, if it's important, but still would like to avoid
17:29<Julian>BTW, I have recently incorporated the following limit option into Mail::SPF: http://spf.pastecode.com/14506 -- I think something similar (obviously slightly more sophisticated) might be a good BCP for all of DNS.
17:29<ScottK>SDGathman: We should think about this for pyspf too.
17:31<frank>Meta: What's that pastebin resource ? Looks good.
17:31<ScottK>Julian: I don't think we are going to resolve this today. Since we are meeting weekly, I don't think pushing this off a week will hurt.
17:31<Julian>Anyway, here's my problem: Wayne has been unreachable for about two weeks now, and I don't like keeping the "draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit Analysis" page private much longer (1-2 weeks tops). I could see omitting the examples, but I don't like the idea a lot.
17:32<ScottK>I'll take the action to try and hunt down grumpy in the mean time.
17:32<Julian>*sigh* OK. Anyone else have any preferences on how to proceed with that page?
17:33<ScottK>If you do, please give us a ...
17:33<SDGathman>...
17:33<SDGathman>Publish it with the examples redacted.
17:34<Julian>(frank: pastebin.com is a free service. You can pick any sub-domain. I picked spf.pastecode.com.)
17:34<SDGathman>And a note that the example will be published at a later date.
17:34<ScottK>SDGathman: Does it hurt to wait a week?
17:34<frank>Julian: thanks, it's nice
17:34<SDGathman>Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front.
17:35<SDGathman>FUD is dangerous.
17:35<Julian>Well, I didn't see any _general_ objections to publishing the page .
17:35<Julian>I agree with SDGathman.
17:35<ScottK>Yes, but it's been sitting there for quite some time. Why will one more week will hurt.
17:35<Julian>The only contention is about whether to publish the examples.
17:35<ScottK>BTW, speaking of FUD, I thought frank's rebuttal of Doug on ASRG was well done.
17:35<Julian>Haven't read it yet.
17:36<ScottK>It's the :20 link above when you have time.
17:36<ScottK>I think it's best to wait one more week and publish it all at once. Incremental release isn't a good idea in my book.
17:36<Julian>Well, OK, let's wait for another week. If we cannot get a hold of Wayne, we'll have to proceed on our own.
17:37*ScottK will not strongly object to publishing without examples, however.
17:37<frank>+1, needs no motion
17:37<alex_b>or vote now for "if grumpy does not object, then ..."
17:37<alex_b>can release next day
17:37<Julian>We can do that at the next meeting.
17:38<Julian>Any objections to waiting one more week?
17:38<alex_b>no objections
17:38<ScottK>No
17:38*frank too
17:38<ScottK>SDGathman: ?
17:39<SDGathman>I'm ok with waiting, but would prefer a redacted version now if available.
17:39<Julian>Maybe we can work out an intermediate version later.
17:39<Julian>Let's move on.
17:39<Julian>5. Broaden write access to the website? (Frank)
17:39*ScottK suggests we wait, but if someone produces a redacted version we can discuss it on spf-council.
17:40<Julian>Frank, please explain your idea.
17:40*ScottK notices we moved on...
17:41<frank>Active folks on discuss should get write access on the Wiki as son as they want it (last example was Boyd a week ago)
17:41<ScottK>Did someone say he couldn't have it?
17:41<Julian>There's one fact that you should consider: we cannot easily restrict certain pages more than others.
17:42<Julian>Therefore I do have a problem with handing out write access if it's just for one-time editing.
17:42<frank>The procedure how to get it is completely unclear. It should be stated on the "unauthorized" page.
17:42<alex_b>frank: agreed
17:42<SDGathman>There is the community part. Any page there can be copied/moved to the restricted part.
17:43<SDGathman>And restricted pages can be copied to the community wiki for editing.
17:43<SDGathman>Making that more convenient might be a plus.
17:43<alex_b>also good. So, direct people (using an URL) to the right place for editing
17:43<Julian>So far _I_ have been setting up website accounts, but anyone with sudo access on earbone and the required knowledge can do it. Only those on the council (and Wayne) should be doing it, though.
17:43<frank>The sandbox usage isn't too much fun
17:44<Julian>What "sandbox usage"?
17:44<SDGathman>The "unauthorized" page could provide a handy action link to copy the page to the Community section, and open an editor there.
17:44<frank>the community sandbox
17:45<Julian>Well, I think we decided to set up a separate http://wiki.openspf.org sub-site a few months back. It's mostly a matter of setting it up, which I haven't found the time yet.
17:45<SDGathman>Then, it is just a matter of emailing the link to spf-webmasters - or maybe there could be a link to do that on pages copied from the official area.
17:45<alex_b>Julian: what are the reasons for not handing out write access by default. Are you afraid it will be abused a lot ?
17:45<Julian>alex_b: Yes. Not necessarily right away. But one day, I am certain, we'd find the whole site crippled.
17:46<Julian>It could be restored, but it would probably be a lot of work.
17:46<alex_b>so what would you do if you were affiliated with wikipedia?
17:46<Julian>Wikipedia has different enemies than we do.
17:46<Julian>Also, WP has a lot more active editors who are ready to undo damage.
17:47<frank>Clearly we can't do a "recent change patrol" as on Wikipedia. Not accounts for everybody and their IP. But what about Boyd, Terry, etc. ?
17:47<Julian>Besides, we aren't a Wiki just because the site runs on a "wiki software".
17:48<SDGathman>I agree with Julian. There needs to be an "official" section of the site which is restricted. However, I am all for expanding use of the public section.
17:48<Julian>Well, I don't have a problem specifically with giving write access to Boyd and Terry.
17:48<frank>But we can revert if necessary.
17:48<Julian>Revert what?
17:48<alex_b>so to summarize ...
17:48<alex_b>give access to good guys, revoke when they would turn bad ...
17:49<alex_b>and have a more easy way for others to submit changes ...
17:49<alex_b>which need to be moderated before being included in the official site
17:49<frank>Whatever. Apparently Wayne reverted your analysis as discussed earlier today.
17:49<SDGathman>And for editors to accept proposed changes from community section.
17:49<SDGathman>Would be nice to click a button to make a proposed page in cummunity become the latest official version.
17:50<ScottK>SDGathman: edit this page, select all, copy, go to new page, edit this page, paste, save isn't very hard.
17:50<SDGathman>Ok
17:51<Julian>There are some real world constraints: Most of the suggestions made require non-trivial changes to the software. I can do them, but it isn't likely to happen within the next two months (I'm also busy preparing for exams these days).
17:51<ScottK>I'd suggest we limit our discussion today to things we can do with our existing infrastructure.
17:51*alex_b seems to recall some talk about an already writable section?
17:51<SDGathman>Yes, the Community section.
17:51<Julian>alex_b: http://www.openspf.org/Community
17:51<Julian>plus http://www.openspf.org/Community/*
17:52<frank>We can do new accounts, with a mailto-form on "unauthorized", can't we ?
17:52<Julian>(this is what's supposed to be moved to http://wiki.openspf.org eventually)
17:52<SDGathman>It is somewhat tricky for a non-privileged member to get a copy of an official page into the community section.
17:53<Julian>AFAICS, these are our (technical) options: Continue to hand out accounts to trustworthy folk. Direct others to use the community section.
17:53<ScottK>SDGathman: They just need to ask on spf-webmasters.
17:53<Julian>http://www.openspf.org/Project_Agenda?raw=1
17:53<Julian>"?raw=1"
17:53<SDGathman>Ah, that answers that objection.
17:53<Julian>(I admit that isn't a well-known trick.)
17:54<SDGathman>Just need a note on that trick on the "unauthorized" page. That won't require any programming.
17:54<Julian>(Someone may want to add a note about it to the "Community" page.)
17:54<frank>Tested it, it's no fun
17:54<alex_b>re :52 is mail to webmasters generally answered soon?
17:54<Julian>I think the "Unauthorized" age should just direct to the "Community" page (later: http://wiki.openspf.org).
17:54<Julian>alex_b: Yes.
17:55*ScottK needs to go in about 5 minutes.
17:56<ScottK>Do we need a motion on this?
17:56<Julian>I don't think so.
17:56<ScottK>frank: Are you happy?
17:56<Julian>I can edit the "Unauthorized" and "Community" pages.
17:56<ScottK>Cool.
17:56<frank>No. But I guess I'm free to improve the unauthorized page
17:57<ScottK>Does that work for the moment then?
17:57<Julian>frank: Please don't make it say "anyone can get write access to the entire site" or anything to that effect.
17:57<frank>of course not
17:58<SDGathman>However, "We welcome your proposed changes, here is how to make them..." would be good.
17:58<ScottK>I'd suggest if anyone else has official business they type ... or we adjourn if not.
17:58<Julian>I think we're done. Any other issues? If so, type "..." quickly.
17:59<frank>Motion: adjourn
17:59<Julian>17:59 seconded
17:59<SDGathman>1759 seconded
17:59<ScottK>2nd
17:59<alex_b>Koen still here?
17:59<ScottK>yes
17:59<Julian>Votes?
17:59<SDGathman>1759 yes
17:59<ScottK>:59 yes
17:59<Julian>1759 yes
17:59<frank>:59 yes
17:59<Julian>The meeting is adjourned.
17:59<Julian>Thanks, gentlemen!
17:59*SDGathman gets going on promised meeting summaries...
17:59<Julian>alex_b: I don't think gmc is here right now.
18:00*alex_b goes #spf
18:00*frank too

This report was generated at Sat Feb 17 23:59:59 UTC 2007.