On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Chuck Mead wrote:
nkadel(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
IRC logs don't count as a public policy or position. The dalliance with
SenderID has been a dragging weight on SPF for quite some time, and an
endless source of confusion. Let's be very clear that SenderID is *not* SPF.
If that takes going to Version 3, and perhaps integrating some slight
additional feature sets to justify it, then so be it.
I fully agree with above
Alright... since you do not want to read the irc logs I will point you
directly to the result of the IRC discussion.
16:14 <csm-laptop> motion: the council desires to express the SPF
Community position on various issues which have
remained unclarified up to now. The council
requests that MarkK provide a draft of his
proposed position paper(s) by 29 December 2004
I've seen Mark's draft here before and I have problems with that he does
not want to address specific issues and wants to create general set of
guidelines for implementors. Now this is all good and needed so I don't
want to say that Mark should not work on all that but I do not believe
that these guidelines can replace the "position" on given issue like
that of relationship between SPF and SID.
I'll note that also that another council member (Wayne) long ago created
the base for position statement that you now see at openspf.org and that
statement had been signed by almost 120 people includig 4 from the council.
Now it may not be "perfect" (and neither would the new statement be) but
it sure is easier to have to work on serious of new statements.
16:15 <Julian> 1614u: seconded.
16:15 <csm-laptop> votes?
16:15 <grumpy> 1614u yes
16:15 <MarkK> 1641u: yes
16:15 <Julian> 1614u: abstain
16:15 <csm-laptop> so ordered
I only see two votes above - Julian abstained (btw I think its the first
time it happened that council cound not reach decision with all who voted
being in favor), Meng was not present and Chuck did not vote being a
chair. So I'm not certain it can really be considered a work task
approved by the council with only two votes in favor.
So... the council has proposed an official positional draft be created
and it will be reviewed on the 29th.
I believe it is appropriate for the statement to be reviewed by SPF-discuss
and council should then make decision to support or modify or reject based
on views presented. This is what would make a difference having this as as
statement from SPF Council or being general one coming from SPF Community.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net