Julian Mehnle wrote in spf-council:
In order of priority:
* Amendment to council resolution #9: keep committee
private until 2005-01-31. (Julian)
This unauthorized committee can stay private as long as it
wishes. It has nothing to do with the SPF community, it's
your private business as an arbitrary group of 5 individuals.
[...]
Policy discussion on SPF's stance with respect to Sender ID.
(Wayne)
The last proposal I've seen came from Mark, it was fine from
my POV. IIRC you already decided to have an "at large vote"
about this issue.
<http://www.sendmail.net/tools/Sendmail_Auth_Reco_wp.pdf>.
General issue, if something's not available as plain text or
HTML consider to ignore it, please. Meng's PDF was readable
for me only after James converted it to PS. Most PNG slides
were fine, but there were many traps and pitfalls in these
ideas, as we had the misfortune to note with the "Sender ID"
debacle.
Response letter to the FTC. (Wayne)
You also wanted some PR letter about the formation of the
council.
Do you see the trend here, nothing about the dead-line for
a new Internet Draft (2005-01-05) set by Ted Hardie ? THAT
should be the one and only priority for 2004, anything else
is relatively irrelevant.
Voting method for council votes
Use whatever you like when it works for IRC meetings.
and future council elections
Let the future RO decide this, or at least postpone it until
it's needed. I WANT A NEW INTERNET-DRAFT FOR SPF THIS YEAR.
Did I make myself clear ?
Bye, Frank
--
Definition of the role of the SPF council and its authority:
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/11787>