Re: Unity, organisation and information for the masses

Yes, I completely agree - new "comminity oriented" website and better 
coordination is needed, this is a reason why I specifically put this 
question on the organization pole as separate one. My opinion is that its 
not just the website that is needed but entire set of tools for managing 
the project and coordinating between developers of different tools and 
listing if different ideas being discussed, etc (Project management for 
coloborative development that is) and that has been locking with current 
spf website which is aimed at marketing SPF to those who don't know what 
it is (which is all very good and should remain as a "frontpage" to SPF).

My recomendation for doing something like this is go with TikiWiki or
possibly TikiPro (an fork from tikiwiki which supports phpbb and that
would allow integration of current mail list with webforums), I've done
installs for both and would be happy to help set or host this (I do run 
ISP with multi-Gb external connectivity), it is flexible and allows
adding new content easily and also allows those people at spf to actually
do it directly themselve with coordinator only linking everything together
(and users can still maintain their own portals and pages). Tiki also has 
some rudementary ticketing system, but different ticketing system might be 
better suited for our needs (I've worked with otrs and rt, prefer otrs for 
isp needs).

Now that all should not be taken as replacement for organization - I 
believe (as it appears many others too) that SPF is week as long as its
unable to stand on its own as an organized community. Currently I received
about 30 responses to my questinair which I do not think is enought of the
representation for SPF comnunity to decide what to do (there is aproximately
60-100 different people posting every week), so again I'll also more of 
you to read it and answer if you have not done it already:
 
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0860.html
And if you did not see it from above - this questinair is NOT about current
problems with Microsoft, PRA, etc and organization WILL NOT be able to address
the Microsoft issues in any timeframe that will likely make any difference
for current events timeframe. This is simply so that we could have better
organization to continue develop SPF in the future.

I'll give it about another week for organization questinair and then will
be the last one to post a response (I consider it inappropriate for person
who creates these questinair to publicly answer it as it may lead people 
in certain way; although I guess you know my opinion and answers to some
of the questions by now). I'll summarize it at the end and I believe more
discussion on what to do about it would then be necessary and face-face 
meeting at IETF to discuss this and other topics maybe good ideas if 
enough of us can come.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Koen Martens wrote:

> People,
>
> I am sending this email as a result of conversations I have had with people
> and in response also to some of the messages on the spf-discuss list. This
> is not about forking, or about speaking badly, or wild speculation. My goal
> is simple: cooperation.
>
> John Pinkerton and I have been talking about setting up one authorative
> source of information about spf for a while now, as some of you may already
> know. John is hosting one attempt at this on spfhelp.{net,com,org,..}, so is
> James on spftools.net and Meng on spf.pobox.com, and there's even some
> relevant stuff on the various libspf/libsrs/libspf2/libsrs2 pages (have I
> forgotten some sites here? I am sure I did!)
>
> We believe all these sites should become one site, all domains pointing to
> the same ip giving the same information. No confusion. I have received
> positive feedback from several people about this so we think it's time to
> make it happen!
>
> The site would provide at least:
>
>   - A really clear description of what SPF actually does, written for newbies
>
>   - A clear and concise description of how to set up spf records, what to
>     put in the TXT record, and how to get it into all the various dns systems
>     out there.
>
>   - quality tools that are easy to use, to validate, test and generate
>     spf records (various tools on spftools.net, with or without an overhaul,
>     various tools already linked on spfhelp.net, the tools on spf.pobox.com)
>
>   - good explanations for the less-initiated about how it works (for which
>     we can recycle a fair amount from existing sites, especially
>     spf.pobox.com)
>
>   - the 'spf registry' of registered domains (spftools.net)
>
>   - centralization of development coordination (already partly on
>     libspf2.org), a 'developers corner'
>
>   - enduser support (already up on rt.sonologic.nl / 
> spf(_at_)sonologic(_dot_)nl and
>     of course the spf-help list)
>
>   - links to _all_ implementation sites, preferably with some short
>     explanation about how to use in-so-far as the sites do not provide this
>     themselves
>
>   - howto's: common topologies/setups with explanations on what to publish
>
>   - howto's: common mta/dns software and how to configure them for spf
>
>
> What we have been lacking is organisation. From William Leibzon's poll it 
> became clear that a lot of us want to see things get organised. As far as 
> the public web site and the customer support go, John and I offer to handle 
> the full coordination of these matters.
>
> John and I are very committed to this concept, and we have basically the
> approval of Meng, James and Shevek, who currently run the sites I am mostly
> aware of at this time. What we now need is for the community to recognize
> the authority of this effort in regard to communicating to the outside
> world.
>
> One very important note: we want objectivity. This unfortunately means
> neither of the players in the libspf/libspf2 debacle can have direct
> influence on the sites content. This does not mean I want to dismiss
> anyone's contribution to this effort, not at all. In fact, we really really
> need the input and contributions of the libspf/libspf2 guys. All we are
> asking, for the sake of moving forward, is that those guys hand over direct
> control of the site to John and me.
>
> Objectivity will also entail that John and I will refrain from politically
> tinted posts to the lists from now on. It is a sacrifice we both are willing
> to make, must make, in order to have this plan of ours succeed.
>
> It is essential that the project is portrayed as a genuine Open Source
> Standards project, and there will be no subversion of any percieved
> opposition.  The intention is to succeed because we are the best.
>
> Last but not least, John and I welcome all help, however small. If you are
> prepared to write the howto's (one of the most pressing issues at this
> point), let us know! Whatever is your expertise, contact us and help! Even
> if it is only in reading and correcting the content. We would like one or
> more people to join John and me in coordinating this stuff, but want to keep
> the coordinating group:
>
> a. limited in size
> b. with an odd number of participants
>
> Three people would be ideal I believe.
>
> Note that in no way are we proposing to be the 'coordinating authority for
> spf' per se. What we do offer is to take on the complete coordination of
> getting this authorative site up and running, and up to date.
>
> I hope everyone can find themselves a place in this initiative, and will
> support us. Let's move forward now.
>
> If this thing doesn't blow up in our face immediately, we'll be sending out
> requests in a couple of days to those who have content that is essential for
> the site.
>
> Thanks for your time and most of all your cooperation,
>
> Koen Martens & John Pinkerton