Mark Shewmaker wrote:
an election (which will probably come to the same result),
won't have such a negative external spin.
Point. OTOH after SPF is in the RfC-editor queue for some
of "us" (TINU) that was that and they got on with other
stuff. So if there's an election "we" probably won't get
161 votes <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/spf-council.htm>
again, let alone the 233 signatures of the SPF position on
<http://old.openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi>
*really* having elections is one of those annoying things
you just have to do in order to claim to be representative.
ACK, however there would be less votes today (only my guess).
I'd want an organizational structure just strong enough that
volunteers can volunteer. And that's what we have. Woohoo!
Indeed.
As long as we need an openspf website, I'd want a council.
There are more issues, "official PRs" (RfC number + appeals),
list management, an "official address" for folks like Brian
and Mr. Hardie (they couldn't talk with everbody offering an
opinion ;-) etc. not limited to dreams about a future PS/DS.
<personal mode="megalomaniac">
No 2182bis I-D that doesn't please the SPF Council has the
faintest chance in an IETF "last call". Just an example.
</personal>
I agree with your bureaucracy comment, and it does worry me
that I effectively want there to always be an spf
organization
We could still pull the plug if SPF is a DS... ;-) Bye, Frank
-------
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