wayne wrote:
I really hope that there are more people active in the SPF
community than just the SPF council.
That's certainly true. Trying to update the Council list I
found that the resolution about its term of office either did
not yet make it into the minutes, or it's in another "secret"
directory waiting for a bulk approval.
I also hope people realize that if we thought that public
discussions at this time were at all appropriate, we would
have done so.
Red herring. Meng said clearly that he's not available after
the whatever-it-is (but certainly it's not "us") summit. So
you won't have a quorum for a long time, and oops, no chance
to appeal the IESG approval before the 63th IETF meeting.
July 31, secretariat cut-off date July 18 IIRC, i.e. anything
sent after July 18 might not make it to the IESG appeal pages:
Brian could ask whether it's okay to publish it if that's not
obvious.
Today was an excellent chance to discuss this and act. Maybe
there will be no other chance. Unless I missed it you also
failed to adjust the quorum to "three yes":
~~~ snip ~~~
Message-ID: <42D174FE(_dot_)2C60(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:20:30 +0200
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
To: wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
Subject: Re: Resignation
[... one line snipped ...]
Ugh. After 1910u you need to reduce the quorum to 3 yes. Bye
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
[1910u was the Council decision to accept Chuck's resignation]
Please don't assume that we are any more organized in private
than we are in public or that the SPF council carries out
much of anything in private.
I certainly have no clue why exactly Chuck resigned, and so I'm
forced to assume the worst case, you and Julian have joined the
delaying-game-fraction.
JFTR, I got no replies for the "3710 obsolete" I-Dea, I got no
replies to repeated questions about the state of IESG affairs
here in SPF-discuss from the Council's POV, and if folks like
Keith and Ned might be not exactly happy with the IESG decision
it's not the time for further delays. July 18 is the tentative
deadline.
I left "secret" SPF council that existing for a few weeks
last fall for just this reason. IIRC, Frank left earlier
than I did (like immediately).
Getting rid of the unsolicited CCs took some days. What you do
in private is strictly your business, and if you want to play
Monopoly with Mr. Hardie, Jim, Harry, Andy, etc. that's fine.
But as SPF Council you're NOT authorized to discuss the public
affairs of the Community - and especially not this affair - in
secret. You're NOT authorized to censor the log files of the
public Council meetings. If you want private and therefore by
definition unofficial meetings keep them apart from the real
job. The real job was to discuss #4 on Chuck's agenda, or #8
and #9 on Julian's agenda.
You didn't do this. Private stuff is by definition irrelevant
for the community, and it also cannot reflect the will of the
community, because nobody knows what it is.
the almost immediate mistrust and wondering just what is
going on.
No big surprise, just read what Meng said immediately before
you started to censor the log file.
I honestly think that for this particular case, right now,
the SPF community is better off by having the council not
tell the *entire world* how we hope to solve these problems
Even if that's true you could be wrong. There's a deadline.
especially not the things that we decided wouldn't be such
hot ideas.
There aren't too many ideas on the table: 1 - Appeal procedure
as explained by **** and William, 2 - Keith's idea, "considered
harmful" I-D, modulo op=pra, 3 - not so hot ideas like my "3710
obsolete" text or modifying 2026, which might be interesting on
their own, but won't rescue v=spf1 policies from the PRA abuse.
Bye, Frank