Re: Re: When did we lose control?

I didn't even think the original posting of this thread deserved a 
response.  I think a lot of vitriol has been posted here as well.  It 
is getting way out of hand.
First, some short responses:

- The way I see it, the one who writes the spec, *is* the one who sets 
the standard.  But only if that spec is the one that is accepted.
- Where did I get the authority to write the spec?  Because I've worked 
my tail off on this project.  Because I've done more than just quibble 
and add my two cents to every thread on this list.  Because I did a 
helluva lot for SPF.
- Everything I've done leading up to draft-lentczner-spf-00 was done 
completely in the open on this list.  Everything.  Every question, 
every decision.
- Sorry, Wayne, you are way out of line: Not only were you not the only 
voice I heard from, you were hardly a voice I heard from.  You didn't 
"gnash your teeth" until the absolute last minute possible.  And in any 
event, many people offered other opinions than the ones you have.
- Sorry all: Sometimes a spec writer has to make a judgment call and 
the answer may not be popular.  I said this would happen up front, so 
no one should be surprised.  I believe that the standard itself has to 
hang together and sometimes that requires overriding one thing over 
another.
- As to my supposed absence last Winter, it is grossly overrated.  I 
may not have been posting here much, or able to attend some of the 
meetings.  But, rest assured, I was pretty involved in what was 
happening and reading all versions of the standard produced.
Now, some big issues:

SPF is at a crisis.  This group is out of control, and not because I 
wrote a draft.  This group has no leadership, no direction, and almost 
no practical output.  This group is rapidly making itself useless.
The first major mistake is that we have no practical product.  SPF as a 
spec is still full of problems:  It hasn't answered the issue of 
forwarders, needing SRS, or a practical way for receivers to whitelist, 
or some other solution. (Don't reply with your favorite solution -- the 
fact that we are still discussing solutions shows we haven't solved 
it.)  The SPF spec is complex due to speculation about need, not actual 
need.  While there are some implementations, there is really nothing we 
can tell someone "drop this into your MTA, set it and forget it".  
There are too many caveats, and any user is going to have keep 
vigilant.
The second major mistake is that we have been far too quick to abandon 
our leadership.  Meng is only continuing to pursue the dual-identity 
Sender-ID that as recently as September was still in favor.  Further, 
even if you are ticked off at the IP issues, or MS "just 'cause", or 
whatever, the whole point of dual-identity was to allow work on SPF's 
Mail From to continue right along.  Don't you all see?  We won the 
battle: MS didn't steam-roller Caller-ID over the industry and it is 
because of our efforts.  Now we can implement SPF on a level playing 
field with MS's PRA.  But, by rejecting Meng as leader, we have 
jeopardized the whole project.
This group needs to shape up, and shape up fast.  It is time to drop 
the whole discussion of MS.  It is time to stop arguing about who did 
what when or why.  It is time to stop adding features.  It is time to 
stop re-hashing features.  Basta!
SPF needs implementations, web pages, test suites, F.A.Q.s, on-line 
checkers, record wizards, documentation, press releases, seminars, cool 
graphics, and a spec writer. It is time for many people to step up to 
the plate and start doing all this work that is needed, even if SPF 
isn't perfect in their view.  It is time for a few people to step up 
and lead those efforts.  It is time for us to rally behind one person 
with a vision that can keep this project moving forward.
Otherwise we are all just wasting the last year's worth of work.

        - Mark

Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com