On 11/14/05, Alex van den Bogaerdt
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
Here's another 2ct:
The current council could be "on call". There's no need to meet from
time to time, unless something interesting happens. Why not freeze
time, put those remaining days "on hold" and use them when they're
useful. No one said the council's year needed to be consecutive...
I see no reason to do the whole voting process over again, chances
are the new council would be quite similar anyway. And, as others
have said, the work involved to vote again might very well be more
than the work done by this new council.
I think the issue is legitimacy. Playing games by saying that the year
need not be consecutive is gaming the system. I'd rather see the
council dissolved (although that is not my first preference) than to
see those kind of games played.
I can live with either a vote on extending terms or a new election
open to nominations. It is not simply the work that the council might
do (although I think that preliminary work might be started on SPF3
(SPF2 is compromised by the language/format of the Lyon draft).
Council is also the official voice of the SPF community. The lack of
organization in preparing for the FTC Summit a year ago is a perfect
example of why council should be in place and in a manner which cannot
reasonably be challenged on legitimacy grounds.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Mike
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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