On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 11:25 -0500, Holm, Mark wrote:
Hi James,
ON the position v101 page, I would move the Doug Otis quote up one
paragraph. It goes more logically with the statement about the
license than with the statement about technical problems.
Ok. I've updated it. The new document is:
http://OpenSPF.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html
If anyone else has further changes to submit I'll accept them up until 5
PM PST at which time I will swap out v101 and replace it with v102 and
symlink previous versions to v102 so no remote linkage is broken. Any
suggestions past 5PM shall find their way into what would be v103 should
it be necessary.
OpenSPF is a portal for information relating to the Sender Policy
Framework ("SPF") as an open community. This open community can best
be defined as individuals who actively work towards furthering what
SPF is and how it is developed in the future. Since Meng Weng Wong has
joined Microsoft in their development of Sender ID there has been
consensus that he alone is no longer suitable as "leader" and as the
sole individual exercising control over what SPF is and how its future
is shaped... and to that end it was decided that a separate portal
needs to exist in order to properly inform and develop SPF. Meng Weng
Wong is supportive of this effort to date, and has linked this page
from the spf.pobox.com website.
That is the updated wording. Previously it said something along the
lines of "Since Meng Weng Wong has joined Microsoft in their development
of Sender ID it has been deemed that it is no longer suitable for him to
remain in charge..." something close to that.
I am trying to, without sounding like there is a chip on a shoulder or
any malice, that it is the communities consensus that he is indeed no
longer suitable, and in reality, he hasn't really even been exercising
any form of leadership let alone being suitable for some time.
I added the final sentence with respect to Meng's support of this
consensus through his linkage to the position statement.
If you can think of a better way to explain to the community just why we
are proceeding in the absence of Meng, or if Meng has wording himself he
would like to see, I will gladly update it.
Anyone else reading this please bear in mind I've only put up what I
could in view of the constantly increasing level of traffic the document
is seeing, so if someone has better wording, please bring it forth so I
can update the website and provide the best possible information to
those who are interested.
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