Julian Mehnle wrote:
You are in error.
Nowhere are private discussions defined to be outside
the scope of the SPF Council.
What you do in private is your private business as five
arbitrary individuals speaking for themselves.
| There is a ROUGH CONSENSUS that SPF work should be done in
| a way similar to IETF Working Group and that SPF leadership
| should encourage discussions and help in determining and
| supporting positions which have consensus of the community
| but should not make policies and key decisions on their own
Zero room for any "official" private business by the Council.
As I said, you are "NOT authorized" to do this, unless it is
on your own account as an arbitrary group of five individuals.
Furthermore, /private/ council business /by definition/ is
not supposed to "reflect" the will of the community.
Exactly. But the abuse of v=spf1 by PRA is no private business
of Council members, it didn't show up on the SPF Council agenda
by some accident, it's the main reason why the Council exists:
| it should be the primary goal of SPF to insure the published
| SPF protocol documents properly represent consensus of the
| community and that SPF protocol is adapted and used as
If you don't trust us, fine, then it seems there's nothing we
can do about it without deviating from the path we think is
best for the SPF project.
You are NOT authorized to do whatever you "think" is the best.
You're supposed to reflect the will of the Community in PUBLIC.
We're talking about Redmond trying to get a hold on some multi-
billion dollar mail business, a TRUST US for something I don't
see does not enter the picture. I only trust that Redmond will
try anything on both borders of legality to get what they want.
don't think we all have the same opinion just because we're
having private discussions together.
Openness and transparency are the _only_ weapons we have. It
is completely irrelevant what I might "think", but it matters
what I and everybody else can see. And what I saw was NOTHING,
because Wayne opted to BLACKOUT the IRC log.
Immediate consequences: Most probably I'll never again look at
any Council IRC log. If I want censored shit I can get better
stuff elsewhere. Hell, I programmed an alarm because I didn't
want to miss this meeting, only interested in points 8 and 9 of
course. And exactly this was censored.
I've removed my public links to the IRC log and other related
pages. The visitors of my site should not be trapped to watch
some censored log files, there's better fun to have in the Net.
Sometimes private discussions are necessary within a
committee in order to gain access to information which is
guaranteed not to be available publicly.
That's not the case for SPF, any "unavailable info" can be only
a trick by the enemies of SPF, or maybe a stupid power trip of
Council members. The SPF project does not have any "secrets" -
the Community just seletcted the name OPENspf for the Web site.
It's exactly the same problem as after the demise of MARID with
a "private" list: It's a delaying game, and a trick to divide
and conquer. This BLACKOUT was an attack on SPF, and even Doug
or Mr. Hardie would be hard pressed to propose something worse.
access to such information can be a strategical advantage
I must have missed the introduction of op=nuke or similar, but
maybe that is some secret strategy. Do you see the problem in
this statement besides from not liking sarcasm and metaphors ?
Nothing was censored from #spf-council.
Of course it was, see the first post in this thread. Because I
didn't know what's going on I even sent a mail to Wayne about 20
minutes after the BLACKOUT. He answered it in the only message
visible during this BLACKOUT.