wayne wrote:
In <429EAA7D(_dot_)8030807(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> johnp
<johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> writes:
How long is it since Meng attended a meeting?
Meng attended the meetings on 2005-05-25 and 2005-05-04.
2 out of loads is not the sort of attendance rate that will convince
anyone "out there" of his good intentions, especially with his continued
and unexplained reluctance to hand the spf.pobox.com website and
pobox.com spf records over to the council.
Why is the council not able to do a simple task of documenting the
existing and in-use version of spf?
Well, part of what is taking so long is I don't think that it is a
"simple" task to try and document the existing version of SPF.
Ok, another really big part is I took a couple months off from SPF.
Sorry.
Everyone should be able to take time-out. This is a voluntary effort
and your work has been invaluable. What I am getting at is the fact
that we will probably document spfv=1 and then move smartly on to
devising spfv=3 which will take over from spfv=1 fairly sharpish, making
the current documentation a bit redundant except for historical interest.
Why does the council repeatedly fail to resolve the website issue?
Personally, I have been trying to concentrate on the SPF I-D. That
said, there really hasn't been anyone else who has stepped forward to
do the huge amount of work needed to take over the running of the SPF
website. Without the cooperation of Meng, this will be even more
work, and so far Meng hasn't helped much.
See my comments above about Meng.
The council seem unwilling or unable to appoint a group to look after
the website issue. There have been volunteers for the work and the
hosting, but attempted perfection is apparently getting in the way of
progress. We need the website done 6 months ago. Ask any of the guys who
look after spf-help mail-list queries.
Why does the council have such ridiculously long discussions about
points which have been beaten to death on spf-discuss?
"Beaten to death" is not the same thing as "resolved".
I am sorry of I over-simplify, but with the amount of chat on
spf-discuss and the apparent circular discussions going on, there seems
to be an inability to grasp a resolution and move on.
When is the council going to resign and stand for re-election?
We recently decided that our terms would be up after 1 year. Yeah,
this is not a very formal way of determining these things. I suspect,
however, if we spent more time on the issue, there would be people
complaining about wasting time on less important things.
There would be - and rightly. One year is fine.
Personally, I said I would resign after 6 months, which would be right
around now. I am very conflicted about what to do. My intent was to
get the SPF spec done by now, but as I mentioned above, I took a
couple of months off. I'm not sure if resigning would be best for the
project.
You're in it for the year AFAIAC.
spf is dying on it's feet because of these shortcomings.
We need more people actually *doing* stuff. The council was elected
so that we would have a way of making final decisions, not to do all
the work.
See above about delegation of the website issue. The council needs to
learn how to ask for volunteers and delegate the jobs, so that no-one
person is overloaded.
There have been many people who have been helping a great deal with
the SPF I-D, and I am extremely thankful for that, but most of this
work doesn't require the SPF council.
The website, the SPF implementations, I-Ds for SRS (and SES?),
integration into MTAs and many other things also don't require SPF
council effort as much as they require people actually doing stuff.
There are people who are not even on these lists who are doing that
stuff. Debian now has an apt-get'able spf implementation, courtesy of
no-one on the council nor (I think) on these lists.
For giggles, I went through the SPF council IRC logs, and here is what
I came up with as far as meetings go:
2005-06-01 no quorum missing csm (vacation) and Meng,
remaining 3 worked on I-D
2005-05-25 all attended
2005-05-22 no quorum missing MarkK (TZ confusion) and Meng
2005-05-18 quorum; missing Meng
2005-05-11 meeting canceled, neither csm nor Meng could make it
(both gave notice before hand)
2005-05-04 quorum; grumpy was 1hr late (TZ confusion)
2005-04-27 quorum; missing Meng
2005-04-06 no quorum; missing MarkK and Meng
2005-03-23 quorum; missing grumpy (meeting was moved a day earlier
at the last minute)
2005-03-17 "meeting failed", I don't remember why
2005-03-02 quorum; missing Meng
2005-02-23 no quorum; missing csm, grumpy and Meng
2005-02-09 all attended; (MarkK was late due to ISP problems)
2005-01-29 no quorum; missing csm and Meng
2005-01-22 meeting cancelled
2005-01-15 quorum; missing Meng
2005-01-10 meeting cancelled; meng gave notice that he couldn't make it
2005-01-08 no quorum; missing Julian, MarkK and Meng
(I didn't check the meetings in 2004-12 because the IRC logs are a
mess.)
Meng is only noteworthy because of his continued absence and
non-participation. The Council should co-opt a replacement for him.
Meantime the rest of the Council only needs to identify work, ask for
volunteers and delegate. Stop trying to *do* everything yourselves - it
won't (and hasn't) worked.