Re: Re: When did we lose control?

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 05:20, wayne wrote:

> My draft was never a "counter-draft", it is documentation about what
> libspf2 does.  I had hoped I had made this point clear when I
> said as the very first sentence of my announcement:
>
> : Yesterday night, I decided that instead of giving up on the SPF
> : project and watching an SPF spec go through that I would, under no
> : circumstances, conform to, that I would simply create a spec that
> : documents what libspf2 does.  This will be used as documentation for
> : my SPF implementation so that people understand what are bugs and what
> : are features. ;-)
Whilst your quoted paragraph is clear, your choice of words is poor, as
is your timing and easily borders on misrepresentation (hrm, a common
theme around these parts), in particular through the repeated use of the
term Draft, and its similarity to precisely that.

This is where you have likely gone wrong Wayne.  The fact that you have
been able to leave John under the impression just spoken of pays tribute
to my point.  John Glube from my readings is pretty sharp so you ought
to think twice when you are confusing individuals such as this.  I'm no
NT dolt either, and yet I was also under the impression you were author
a Draft not documentation.

> My draft has not been submitted to the IETF and I have no plans to do
> so.  It would take a huge amount of convincing to make me change my
> mind.
>
> Indeed, Mark did let everyone have a chance to comment on his draft
> before he submitted the SPF-classic draft.  I have, on several
> occasions, told Mark of my concerns.  My creation of documentation for
> libspf2 came only after Mark's submission to the IETF because until
> Mark came out with a final draft, I had no way of knowing if he would
> address my concerns.
Bad timing and wording.  All I can see that has happened as a result is
more confusion.  Thank you for at least clearing this up.

> > There was no consensus to proceed in this direction.
> I really hope no consensus is needed for me to proceed with
> documenting libspf2.
Does it even compile yet?  You know after the way you treated me and
retorted to my desires to co-author a new library, I find it quite hard
to take you seriously after you let Shevek run around with Scissors
through your second leaving you with that the third incarnation?

Regardless of this, people do actually read what you say, and some
perhaps even so far as to consider you an authority over this "stuff". 
I've found no joy in many of your actions but I have seen eye to eye
with you on almost every single technical issue raised to date, and you
even have demonstrated where your allegiance lays.  I was quite sad to
see that you didn't use the appropriate channels to voice your technical
concerns within the allotted time (which could have easily been
extended).

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                                                     ( ( (      
      ((__))         __\|/__        __|-|__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part