wayne wrote:
something on the agenda that no one could remember *what*
was supposed to be decided.
Guessing: They put it on the agenda because they wanted
some input from you. Radu tested what he had in his mail
folders, and he found some ugly cases of overly complex
policies.
You used to have a much broader base of policies, based
on this collection it might be possible to decide whether
Radu's problem is a real problem.
Personally I don't think that there's a real problem, but
your colleagues needed your input for an answer to Radu (?)
End of guessing.
We should use the time to make decisions.
Sure, but putting something on the agenda is a perfect way
to dispose of obscure problems. E.g. in theory all these
issues with the SPF Web page are solved. But in practice
it is still the same as it always was. (( Please stay away
from it, it's not your problem. It's only a natural case
of resolution != solution ))
Maybe breaking my word twice doesn't make things right
I don't think that that's the correct or only way to see it.
If a majority of the Council decides to work longer it makes
no sense to desert them in four weeks. But maybe you find a
PBM-way without IRC allowing Meng to participate, that turned
out to be a permanent and real "admin" problem, in addition
to the Web/wizard/why related issues.
at least another month in order to actually get the SPF
spec through the IETF.
Here I'd guess that _one year_ after -01 was submitted is
more realistic. You're going for a "draft standard", that
means a full IETF "last call".
They'll all mobilize their reserve troops. MAPS, Sender-ID,
every FUSSP patent holder on earth (there are legions) will
crawl from under his stone for this IETF event of the year.
This "draft standard" is double or nothing, and one aspect
of this "nothing" is the IETF as a mere collateral damage.
Bye, Frank