Chuck Mead wrote:
since you have obviously not given *ENOUGH* information on
this
I knew all points you mentioned, I proposed immediate changes,
most important on the "why" page, and I tested Wayne's setup
after the transfer.
What I didn't get was why you start to cackle without an egg.
how about you Frank... sound like the ring of truth?
Absolutely, like "SPF is an essential part of Sender-ID", but
it's somewhat beside the point.
Why not take the same time you would use to criticize and
write something publishable for the new site?
Grab anything you like from my http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test
collection, incl. the op= draft or the council election page.
As far as I'm concerned only why and wizard are relevant, plus
some historical files like Meng's famous CYA slide show, if it
belongs to spf.pobox.
Anything else could be some glue pages linking to other sites
like the community position, Wayne's stuff (test suite etc.),
some of John's tools, Julian's thingy, William's 2003 history,
Scott's provider llist, etc.
For an FAQ all you need is a bunch of spf-help articles, with
links to the articles on GMaNe, nobody's interested to write it
up again.
I've also sent you (= 3 council members) an unpublished draft,
but got no reply. I'm certainly willing to polish it if that's
the tack you will take.
Lets consider this a status report then shall we?
Yes. And what's the status wrt to the IESG trying to publish
incompatible drafts with the same co-author, who happens to be
one of your Council colleagues ? He won't appeal the decision
to do this, so what are you planning ? Did you dicuss it with
Brian, is anything ready to get the IAB involved ? Bye, Frank
See previous article:
| What's the SPF Council intending to do against the IESG
| "legalization" of the massive v=spf1 abuse by PRA ? The
| clock for your appeal ticks, after two months it's over
| and v=spf1 is essentially dead