On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 21:37 +0000, Shane Rush wrote:
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 2:34:07 PM, Mark wrote:
HM> James,
HM> Trust me on this.
HM> Take out the part about Meng.
HM> No matter what anybody on the list, or anybody else involved
HM> with SPF thinks about Meng or his actions or statements, it
HM> doesn't do SPF any good at all to put essentially private
HM> disagreements in a public statement. It is a distraction from the
HM> real meat of the subject.
Glad you are awake Mark!
Geez! I saw so much anti-MS comment I sailed straight past comments
on Meng. I agree completely, for most people outside this group
Meng is SPF, SPF is already accepted as a success = Meng is a
success. Badmouthing both Meng (SPF) and MS will ensure that Pobox
becomes the only trusted voice of SPF - well done....... :(
I'm not quite sure how to take that. The "SPF Community Position on
Sender ID" is a document that has been composed by members of this list,
and Meng asked for just this. There is no side stepping the MS issue,
although I feel quite strongly that there isn't any real negative MS
sentiment in the "position" document.
Perhaps you could contribute how you think wording could be adjusted to
best reflect a position that gets the point across without coming off
all "Anti-MS". The Position is supposed to be construed as "Anti-PRA"
or "Anti-SenderID".
The wording on the main page isn't Anti-MS either, nor is it Anti-Meng,
I tried as best as I could to use "word association" in this case,
Meng's name with SPF, and attempted to explain the presence of the
"Positions" document since why would it exist if Meng was actively
involved?
I am going to now update it to the better wording that was provided
earlier this evening. And I would like to make a "last call" for
changes to revision 1.02 of the "Positions" document so if you do have
feedback I will hold off on it so you may supply your suggestions.
The current "to-be-posted" v1.02 document is here:
http://OpenSPF.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html
I look forward to hearing suggestions from you.
Cheers,
James