In
<7ae58c220511021306o279d647blb11cf889453f66b7(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Dotzero <dotzero(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
I would be in favor of elections rather than simply extending terms by
fiat. There needs to be some sort of organization in place. Having
elections provides legitimacy to the council as representatives of
thsoe interested in SPF.
I would suggest that voting should be restricted to list participants
posting prior to Waynes email about this issue. This helps avoid the
ballot box being stuffed.
One problem with running a new election is that it took about a month
last time to decide who could vote, who could run
(nominations/self-selection), and how the votes would be counted.
It took about a month to decide how to run the domain name election.
Above, you suggest that only those who have participated on
spf-discuss in the last year should be able to vote. Last year, I
proposed a similar requirement, but there were objections. There are
people who, quite correctly, are valuable parts of the SPF community
that rarely, if ever, post to the list. For example, Scott Perry has
been incredibly support of SPF and his SPF checks on DNSstuff.com have
probably lead to wider deployment of SPF than Microsoft's stuff on
their website.
Last year, John Pinkerton took charge and did a huge amount of work to
organize and run the election. Someone is going to have to step
forward for this one also.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com