Dotzero wrote:
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.
Let me just add a cent to that, my intuition says that without a
body such as the spf council, spf loses 'weight'. If the councel is
dissolved, the community around spf might as easily dissolve. With
the council, there is a concrete idea of spf being 'alive',
'present'. I'd sleep better knowing that there is a council, that
can make decisions from time to time, and hopefully mobilise people
to get active when needed.
Best,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
-------
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