-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William Leibzon wrote:
It should probably be appropriiate role(s) from SPF council (secretary
or chair or executive director - I would probably prefer the chair role
for this originally)
That won't work because after the next council election, the domains would
most probably have to be transferred to another person, and I think this
is inappropriate.
or create a new role "spf project property trustee".
That would roughly be the implication of the current plan.
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
One thought is maybe asking some trusted organization to hold the
domain name. For example, the apache foundation, or SPI (the debian
holding corp), or someone.
This is an interesting idea. Any of those organizations would probably
have to discuss the issue within its own circles first, though. Any
comments?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCtD20wL7PKlBZWjsRAnJ3AKD0f/4GKjPtae60Dj0Vsy9T44bknACfepgk
m6iC9X+c0QAvp1N47qX/qi4=
=EbYK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----