----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Agenda item: SenderID Position Statement
In <001a01c4daf1$b75bd980$0b4b573e(_at_)idimo2> "jpinkerton"
<johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com>
writes:
For the next SPF council meeting, I request that the SPF communities'
position on SenderID be put on the agenda.
One of my candidate pledges said:
I strongly support the "SPF Community Position on SenderID" as
written
on http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html and
have signed it. Since this document was (obviously) written before
the elections, one of my first tasks would be to bring this to an
Does this mean another "all spf voters" vote? Or are you referring to a
vote
within the council -- which is a much better idea -- that's what you
were
elected to do.
Sorry for the confusion. I had always intended this to mean an "SPF
council vote", not a vote at large. I view the people who have, or
have not, signed the document to be a vote at large.
I think we all knew what people were standing for when we voted for the
council, so we don't need to say anymore, let's get on with things.
Right before I posted this agenda item request, I checked, and I'm the
only candidate that mentioned this in their candidate platform.
However, I believe that 4 of the 5 council members have signed it.
Good, good :-)
I'd skip the cross-postings - anyone with half a brain (even me) who is
interested in the council stuff will be lurking on that list.
FWIW - I am mighty impressed with the level of technical expertise *and* the
high level of ability to get on with stuff, as illustrated in the council
irc logs. I was also eavesdropping on you excellent webpage of the irc logs
while you you "in session" and it's nice to see that you're all not afraid
to "grasp the nettle". ;-)
KUTGW (Keep up the good work - add that to you Funk and Wagnel ;-)
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492