Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 1:45:56 PM, Koen wrote:
KM> In response to Wayne's request to keep thing public as much as possible,
KM> i'm taking this to spf-discuss.
KM> I have just this to say: James believes he has a god-given right to
KM> represent spf. Fine, I doubt that he is the right person for the cause.
KM> In fact, he is doing more damage than good. The fact that most people
KM> are ignoring him nowadays anyway (a fact he complains about a lot
KM> lately), surely doesn't give me the impression he has a right to lead
KM> this community.
A concensus and recent vote have produced a set of goals that a loud
minority people seem unable to accept and appear to choose to undermine.
KM> Finally, to James, if you perceive people are giving you 'a lot of
KM> shit', and you perceive that people are ignoring you, perhaps you should
KM> ask yourself 'am i crazy, or is the world?'.
Some people have been working very hard to create a single Web launch
point for press and new users to SPF drawing on the content (+ links
to) of established but technical sites. The new site AIUI seeks to have
non-technical independent editors so as to create 'User of SPF' based
content in addition to existing 'technical content for implementation'
The continued demand that current owners of Technical sites control the
new site is mad, I only opened my mouth in this group because my clients
were complaining that they were unable to find beginner level information
on existing sites and found no direction here. We now have direction,
Coders are invited to give technical input for the site - AND ARE NOT BEING
EXCLUDED - others however are better qualified to create USER LEVEL
content.
KM> I am not signing the statement on openspf.org, not because it doesn't
KM> basically reflect my thoughts,
Likewise, James I cannot sign as the statement for commercial reasons, but
also because it reads as a political rant that will play badly with my
clients. The statement should IMO be pushing the advantages of SPF
as a separate freestanding entity and a call to arms for the Internet
Anti-Spam community AND OpenSource. A side warning that MS PRA appears
incompatable in some respects is fine - please add facts. But please
not just endless innuendo.
As it stands I believe the current wording will push Commercial
interests new to SPF into the arms of MS simply because Commercial
interests will now think that 'the Quicker MS takes over SPF the
better' because the statement confirms that SPF is only interested
in badmouthing the MS effort and has nothing to offer itself.
i don't approve of MS, but at least i can flick the chip from my
shoulder.
Shane