----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hammer" <dotzero(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Accountable Messaging Standards Group
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:26:13 -0500, Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:44:59 +0000 (GMT), csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
wrote:
PHB has made what seems to me to be an excellent suggestion. He
suggests that the subject line of this email should be the
organizational name for what we're trying to form. In spite of the
fact that he and I have had significant differences I happen to
agree with this strategy. I invite comments and discussion?
1. gaining public acceptance as a 'standards' group requires some track
record. the usual model for a group like this is that it works as an adjunct
to formal standards efforts.
2. this is an spf effort. characterizing it as something larger -- such
as "accountability messaging" will merely cause it to overlap with other,
independent efforts, thereby creating confusion.
d/
I was actually thinking the same thing as Dave. The name does imply a
broader mandate. On the other hand, an umbrella group might not be a
bad idea.
If a single group could help deal with coexistance and implementation
issues then closer consideration should be given to the idea. To a
large extent the same people will have their oars in development
(whether cooperating or as adversaries) and/or be implementing
(whether primarily senders, receivers or both...also musn't forget
vendors).
If the various constituencies can find a way to work together this is
clearly much better than working at cross purposes. I think most
(perhaps even all) the players can find a way to work together. The
playing field has to be clear (as Phillip pointed out, the rules are
usually set before nominations) and there needs to be a consensus that
the common interests outweigh the differences.
I recognize that I mostly lurk and rarely post so I'm not making any
nominations. I do think a broader leadership group that has (some)
representation of the broader stakeholders (including large ISPs)
should be considered.
Whilst I agree that this is possibly an interesting option, it is muddying
the waters for SPF.
Can we focus please people. There is a *really* bad tendency amongst the
wild enthusiasm to be doing the "next" thing when we haven't got "this"
thing done yet.
In the presence of so many people on the list in the last 24 - 36 hours, and
in the light of there being only one objection to my posted proposed
timetable for ending nominations and taking a vote, I'm going to work it
like this (unless there's a massive outcry).
Monday post the final list of nominations.
Monday post the "Invitation to Vote for an SPF Council"
Thursday 09:00 GMT end of voting
Saturday (or earlier) Post the results.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492