Add creation of official SPF test suite to long-term list (the prerequisite
for this is obviously a finalization of SPF Classic protocol document).
For voting, I think either Approval or Condorcet will work fine and approval
is easier for others to understand. With multiple candidates what we have
was pretty close to approval system, so I thought it was ok. That said I'm
not opposed to Condorcet if council decided on it. What I'm however concerned
is possibility of large organization (commercial or otherwise) asking its
members/employers to join SPF in order to advance certain candidate(s) -
with large enough base of additional people not even Condorcet will stop
them from gaining the majority.
As such I think we need some kind of way to make sure the candidates
that run for elections are there to represent SPF Community and not some
single party and I recommend that for this purpose you establish a new
body (i.e. "election commission") which goal is to supervise elections
and approve list of candidates - my recommendation is that it be small
(say 3 people) and that it be randomly composed of people who NOBODY
else at SPF Community has problems with. The procedure might be that
first call is made for people to serve on this commission and after the
list of candidates is published, anyone on spf-discuss can object - but
only to one candidate - and that person is then removed; from resulting
list of candidates 3 people are randomly chosen based for example on IETF
system for choosing people to be on ietf nomcom). The commission's
responsibility would be to review qualifications of every candidate for
SPF Council (and it can remove candidates it does not believe would be
good for representing SPF Community) and to organize elections based on
the rules set by SPF Council and to then to approve final results of the
elections (its responsibility would include deciding on complaints of
problems with elections, etc).
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Hi all,
here are the issues, some of which still open from prior meetings, that
should in my opinion sooner or later be discussed at meetings or on the
council and community mailing lists. In order of priority:
* Amendment to council resolution #9: keep committee private until
2005-01-31. (Julian)
* The SPF project should gather empirical data regarding inconsistencies
between RFC 2821 and RFC 2822 identities in real e-mail traffic.
(Greg Connor, Julian)
* Policy discussion on SPF's stance with respect to Sender ID. (Wayne)
* Policy discussion on SPF's stance with respect to the Sendmail White
Paper <http://www.sendmail.net/tools/Sendmail_Auth_Reco_wp.pdf>.
(Mark)
* Policy discussion on Meng's Whitepaper. (Wayne)
* Response letter to the FTC. (Wayne)
* Future elections. (Wayne)
* Voting method for council votes and future council elections
(Condorcet?). (Julian)
Would it be a good idea to create a long-term agenda for the SPF project
and/or council on the Council Thingy?
_______________________________________________
Spf-council mailing list
Spf-council(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/spf-council