-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In the fine tradition of disorganizations everywhere, I propose that we
have new council elections the second week of January every year (after
everyone's had a chance to recover from the holidays). In the current
instance, we should extend the council terms to cover until those
elections. The holiday meeting is more traditional, but we don't
have one of those, so it won't work.
This is a matter that can be resolved by a simple list vote, unless
people feel a need for a more formal mechanism.
So I propose that all nominations be in by 2006-01-09 00:00:01 GMT, with
the voting thread (or whatever mechanism we decide to use) closing
at 2006-01-16 00:00:01 GMT.
This is of course unless people really feel that this needs to be
handled *now*, in which case we should open nominations immediately
and try to get the vote in the week after US Thanksgiving.
Greg Connor wrote:
Hi all,
Having read the thread about the future of the council, I don't have a
strong feeling either way. I agree with Wayne that SPF itself can
continue to grow on its own. I can see a valid way forward for SPF
whether the Council continues or not.
If the council needs to be continued for a year or more, new elections
would be the way to go. If there is consensus that a council is needed
for a short time more, extending current terms for less than a year
probably makes sense, especially if organizing an election is more work
than the new council would actually do after being elected :)
Having a council is good for some tasks, and it's a good way to sidestep
some of the problems that MARID suffered. Without official
representation, it's possible for a minority to scuttle attempts to
reach consensus. However, there is also a downside. Having a council
can act as a deterrent to other people taking on tasks and getting
things done.
Speaking personally, as a community member and not in any official
capacity, I think once the Experimental draft is published, I am content
to have the council dissolve. I don't have a burning need for
"official" representation anymore.
If we don't have an official "SPF Council" in the future, it's also
possible for people to organize themselves according to projects that
need doing. That's also a valid way to go. People who are willing and
able to work on the web site, or take on help requests, or to collect
ideas for a new spf version, or whatever, can organize those projects
and give decision-making power to the people who are actually willing to
do the work. We might end up with "task force" type of organizations in
that case. I would probably be in favor of this type of structure,
rather than a "governing" body that is "The Authority on all things SPF".
Thoughts? comments?
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)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
- --
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDe2qS8/QSptFdBtURAtFqAJ95grY+AW/j7bibGy16DUF6MhMNHACfbVGA
gtVeP0XgBT0IDuVEAaESkIQ=
=lwJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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