#9: A committee shall explore options for the future evolution of the SPF project
While finalizing the SPFv1 specification and getting it formally ratified by the IETF is currently the primary goal of the SPF project, expanding the scope of the project into the more general space of Accountable Messaging Standards is considered an important perspective by the council.
In order to explore options on whether and how to follow this path, without having to shift focus from finalizing the SPFv1 specification, a committee shall be instituted by the council. The committee is to discuss the available options and jointly present one or more recommendations to the council on how the SPF project should proceed after the work on the SPFv1 specification has been concluded.
In order to facilitate completely open discussion within the committee, its mailing list archives shall be kept private indefinitely, but the committee's conclusions and any ongoing work after 2005-04-01 shall be unconditionally laid open.
Formation and oversight of the committee is delegated to council member Chuck Mead.
(Proposed on 2004-12-04 by Chuck Mead, passed unanimously. First amendment proposed on 2004-12-22 by Julian Mehnle, passed unanimously. Second amendment proposed on 2005-02-09 by Chuck Mead, passed unanimously.)
<csm> okay so as I said previously I have one more piece of business and
then would like to open discussion of other business to the floor
<csm> so the chair would like to enquire if this council is interested in
exploring options that have been discussed to move SPF into an
"anti-spam" standards org...?
<Julian> Yes.
<grumpy> I'm not opposed to it, but I don't want that to distract from
getting SPFv1 done
<Julian> Agreed.
<csm> other opinion?
<grumpy> do you think we can do both?
<csm> just hold on grumpy
<Julian> grumpy: We should pursue a long term vision right from the start, I
think.
<freeside> i'm pretty confident the directorate will pass whatever we submit,
personally
<csm> directorate?
<freeside> ietf
<grumpy> IETF
<freeside> if they're going to do that, why not go with the usual RFC
publication channel.
<grumpy> a group of people who review all MARID I-Ds
<csm> yes... but who among us wants to stop there... and that is my
concern
<MarkK> I promised I would make SPFv1 my first priority; I feel that should
be our foremost priority now; we lost too much time in that regard
already
<csm> okay... let me put it in a different way
<Julian> I think we should keep the larger perspective in mind while
finalizing SPFv1.
<csm> what I would actually like to propose is this
<csm> we form a committee... made up of interested council members and
some of the other interested parties from the electorate
<csm> an exploration committee
<grumpy> I would support that.
<Julian> csm: I.e. a spf-strategic mailing list?
<csm> that committee then reports back to the council with a
report/recommendation which the council can then choose to adopt,
defer or pursue
<csm> Julian: yes... that would likely be an appropriate resource
<Julian> 2055a: seconded
<csm> say we give it a month... that way the concil could pursue the
SPFv1 and we have work being done in the mean while which could be
adopted later which suite the long term vision of some of us as
well as the elctorate
<MarkK> csm: can you clarify perhaps a bit more what its purpose would be?
to explore strategic courses of action for the council?
<MarkK> or just SPFv1?
<csm> MarkK: this effort is (and always has been) bigger, for me, and
some others than just SPF
<csm> I do not want to slow down the adoption of SPFv1
<csm> but we have an opportunity to create something bigger and I think
we should
<Julian> MarkK: "Accountable Messaging Standards Group" or something, I
think.
<csm> yes
<csm> it involves more than just SPFv1
<Julian> SPFv2/3, for instance.
<grumpy> SES?
<Julian> Possibly.
<csm> so I don't want to slow down SPFv1 while we deal with that so I
propose we apooint a committe to explore those options
<MarkK> I read a lot of late about replacing IETF and such; not sure how
feasible that is
<Julian> I don't think we should try replacing IETF. That ain't gonna work.
<grumpy> w3c.org replaced the IETF for a small area
<csm> well look guys... I do not think it's appropriate for the council
to make the decision about that direction
<grumpy> or, more exactly, the IETF fell over for a certain area and the w3c
was formed to fill the void
<csm> what we *SHOULD* do is appoint a committee to look at it and come
up with some useful/doable suggestions
<MarkK> The grounds for any successul 'takeover' is a solid, tangible
basis; SPFv1 in RFC form would be such a basis
<Julian> Accountable messaging isn't just SPFv1-style hop-to-hop
authentication.
* grumpy agrees with julian
<csm> I don't necessarily want to do a "take over" of the IETF
<grumpy> it could also include karma.org
<Julian> It might include things like S/MIME...
<Julian> grumpy: Yup.
<grumpy> (if Meng approves)
<csm> but AMSG might be a damned good thing and I think we should explore
the options
<Julian> csm: Is that a formal proposal?
<MarkK> Ok, I agree on on
<grumpy> freeside: comments?
<csm> AMSG1: proposed--- that the council appoint a committe to explore
the options available for formation of a formal group
<Julian> AMSG1: Seconded.
<csm> votes?
<Julian> AMSG1: yes
<MarkK> AMSG1: yes
<grumpy> AMSG1: aye
<freeside> AMSG1: abstain
<grumpy> freeside: ?
<csm> so ordered
<csm> grumpy: would you accept to undertake the formation of the
committee?
<grumpy> I would prefer to consentrate on SPFv1 draft
<Julian> freeside: Would you be willing to explain your abstention for our
audience?
<freeside> i think the council should discuss what we want to achieve before
we get into the details of how specifications should be ratified.
<Julian> Ah, ok.
<csm> is there a council member who would undertake to form the
committee?
<freeside> i mean, i'd be happy for the subcommittee to go ahead, i guess
<freeside> we just have to be sure we're going to think about what it reports
back with
<Julian> "formal group" doesn't imply "standards body".
<csm> is there a council member who would undertake to form the
committee?
* grumpy is interested in exploring freeside's concerns
* csm firgured that since freeside workd so closely with standards
groups he did not want to seem to be undercutting them
* MarkK is not entirely clear on the purpose of that committee yet
<csm> to explore options for creation of a formal body for managing and
proposing anti-spam standards
<freeside> proposing or ratifying?
<Julian> Huh?
<csm> if you are familiar with the LSB it could be something like that
<Julian> Anti-spam somewhat ignores anti-forgery.
<csm> no it doesn't
<Julian> Spam and forgery are rougly orthogonal.
<csm> anti-forgery is a valid method for fighting spam
<grumpy> "SPF is an anti-spam tool like flour is a food"
<MarkK> in short, the whole AMSG deal
<csm> understand me... *I AM NOT PROPOSING A NAME*
<csm> though PHB's original idea had a lot of merit IMHO
<csm> ~sigh
<grumpy> my position remains, as I first said: I'm not opposed to it, but I
don't want that to distract from getting SPFv1 done
<csm> grumpy: I don't either... that's why I proposed a committe
<csm> AMSG1
<csm> was the proposal
<Julian> Ok, let's see if I can reword the proposal...
<csm> anyway... in order to insure that we get the SPFv1 underway without
distraction I propose this committee to explore the options
available and come up with a workable idea
* grumpy would like to hear more from freeside on this subject.
<freeside> are we going to try to handle CLEAR as well as MASS?
<freeside> see, i have a specific plan for going ahead with deployment
<freeside> and i want to share it with you before we make any decision about
whether to use the IETF or not
<freeside> but for now i'd be ok with doing a subcommittee to investigate
setting up a separate standards organization.
<csm> our electorate had significant interest in this (and still does) so
it has to be proposed but I am trying to do it in such a way that
we meet both requirements... pushing SPFv1 forward and also
pursuing the other options simultaneously
<freeside> so let's go ahead with a subcommittee but let's also get SPFv1 done
<freeside> all of this has to happen in light of the other things that are
going on
<freeside> and i need to brief you on the other things that are going on.
<grumpy> freeside: would you like to take charge of that committee?
* MarkK wants to hear more about freeside's ideas
<csm> creation of a committee will allow us to do it without distrcating
the council unnecessarily
<freeside> no, i think it'd be best if i could give input to the committee but
with your greater experience with the IETF i think you should chair
that committee.
<grumpy> me?
<csm> which is exactly what the chair thought when he proposed grumpy for
committee leadership
<grumpy> Well, I see a conflict between pushing SPFv1 and heading up the
committee
<MarkK> I have to agree with freeside here; I would like to here more
defined first what job we set out to do, before we form a committee
to find the right tools.
<csm> MarkK: isn't your first thing the SPFv1?
<MarkK> yes
<csm> that was your platform yes?
<grumpy> mine too
<csm> so let the council work on that now... this committee will
undertake to look at the other options
<MarkK> my platform is: first thins first. We can expand from that
<csm> this "proposed" committee
<MarkK> things, even
<Julian> I think SPFv1 is first priority for all of us right now. But we
have to keep the big picture in mind, so sooner or later we have to
find out where to go in the long term.
<csm> okay... let the chair rephrase the proposal
* MarkK still likes to hear freeside's plans
<freeside> let me take a stab at respecifying the committee. let's say that
it's chartered to answer the question: given a strategic direction
which will solidify over the next few weeks, do we need to find an
alternative forum for ratification of standards in the messaging
space, and if so, what alternatives are available, and which are
recommended
<Julian> Well, standards-making isn't exactly the same thing as strategic
planning. Who does the strategic planning?
<csm> the chair is asking, essentially, if it may have the council's
approval to form an exploration committee for the purpose of
examining ways and means to expand, cement, build upon our existing
work by creating an umbrella organization for Accountable Messaging
Standards?
<grumpy> maybe we should address the issue of SPFv1 first? If the council
delegates the task of being the primary author of the SPFv1 draft
to, say David Woodhouse, then I could easily work on the long term
direction committee without conflict.
<freeside> we do the strategic planning.
<csm> bwaaaaaaaaahahahhahahaa!
<Julian> freeside: we == the council? Or we == the SPF project?
<grumpy> or we == committee?
<Julian> right
<freeside> the council primarily and the spf-discuss mailing list secondarily
<freeside> you can't delegate strategic planning to a subcommittee
<Julian> I can agree on that.
<csm> oh geez
<csm> can I part the weeds you guys are planting?
<Julian> freeside: But you can delegate research, exploration, and
discussing to a committee. ;-)
<csm> please?
<MarkK> I hate to be the one to bring it up, but as SPFv1, we need some
clarity too with regard to the position of MarkL
<grumpy> (MarkK that is out of scope right now, but I agree)
<csm> the chair requests a moment
<MarkK> csm: go ahead
<csm> okay look
<csm> what I want to do is to go form this committee with the council's
permission to explore options for the future... we do not have to
decide anything about it now except should the options be
explored... a viable (or not) proposal would come out of this
committee and the council can take it up at that time
<csm> quite simply... do I have the councils permission to undertake that
work...
<Julian> I like that. (But I am repeating myself, I guess.)
<Julian> AKA yes.
<Julian> AKA seconded.
<csm> devloving into should we/shouldn't we discussion about a proposal
which does not exist is a waste of time
<csm> so we have a seond... obviously the chair votes yes
<freeside> yeah, you have a second.
<Julian> 2122a: yes
<freeside> 2122a: yes
<MarkK> 2122a: yes
<grumpy> 2122a: yes
<csm> so labeled... so ordered
<Julian> One moment.
<Julian> I propose that the AMSG1 vote be retracted.
<csm> AMSG1 retraction: second
<grumpy> why is this being retracted?
<Julian> Because it either is redundant to or conflicts with 2122a.
<csm> it's the first proposal... we voted and approved it and then fell
into discussion...
<MarkK> replaced by 2122a, right?
<csm> yes
<freeside> sounds good to me
<csm> now... at this time the chair passes the conch to freeside and must
exit to undertake some pressing family business... I will look over
the rest of the discussions when I have a chance to return
<csm> freeside: you have the conch!
* grumpy agrees, AMSG1 appears redundant to me.
<grumpy> ok freeside, call a vote on the retraction?
<freeside> csm's the chair, he's calling the vote
<freeside> oh, he's passing the conch
<freeside> silly csm
<freeside> fine, 2128a: vote to retract the AMSG1 vote in favour of the 2122a
vote
<freeside> 2128a: yes
<Julian> 2128a: yes
<grumpy> 2128a: yes
<MarkK> 2128: yes
<MarkK> 2128a: yes
<freeside> okay, phewVote log for 2004-12-22 amendment | >> |
<Julian> I'd like the council to _formally_ change resolution #9 in order
to approve of keeping the committee private until 2005-01-31.
<grumpy> yes
<Julian> Any comments?
<grumpy> Julian: give a motion
<csm-laptop> Julian: a quick comment about your motion
<Julian> Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's
work shall be kept private until 2005-01-31.
<Julian> csm: Yeah?
<MarkK> julian: how will it be private if this channel is posted in
public?
<csm-laptop> the committees product will be public...
<Julian> I know.
<csm-laptop> the discussions will likely never be public...
<Julian> Uhm, ok. Why is that?
<MarkK> ok
<grumpy> my understanding is that the discussions after 2005-01-31 would
be public
<csm-laptop> as it is most of the committees membership is very concerned
about consequences if their discussions become public... it is a
very serious thing that is being discussed
<Julian> grumpy: Of course, I doubt anyone would object to that.
<grumpy> and if there is no product by then, the council should approve
moretime, if warrented
* Julian doesn't understand the situation completely.
<Julian> Ok, look:
<Julian> I propose that we change res #9 as proposed above, so I can
finally request access to the archives with a clear conscience.
Then let's have another resolution _later_ about keeping old
discussions (up to 2005-01-31) private.
<grumpy> how much later?
<csm-laptop> I suggest a modification
<Julian> grumpy: Next meeting should be enough.
<Julian> I'd have to read up on the archives first.
<csm-laptop> I suggest a modification
<csm-laptop> to the motion
<Julian> csm: Go ahead.
<csm-laptop> motion: rescind resolution #9
<Julian> Please give very good reasons for that.
<grumpy> and do away with the committee (as far as SPF council is
concerned)?
<csm-laptop> this council does not support the committees work without adding
untenable restrictions... thus the committee is unable to do
anything until this is settled... so... what I propose is the
easiest way to get the committee moving
<Julian> Compromise:
<Julian> Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's
work shall be kept private.
<Julian> (And let's later resolve that things shall be made public.)
<csm-laptop> modification: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the
committee's mailing list archives will be kept private. The
product of the committee will be public once complete.
<grumpy> will the committee continue after the product is made?
<Julian> I could live with that. grumpy, MarkK: any comments?
<csm-laptop> not in it's current form... at least I don't see why it would
need to
<MarkK> csm: I think I read you saying something to the effect of 'they
will become public over my dead body', so I guess you feel strong
about it. :) I have no problem with those archieves staying
closed.
<csm-laptop> :-)
<Julian> csm: Can we add that 2005-02-01 (or 2005-01-31) date into your
last modification somehow?
<grumpy> resolution #9 doesn't give a deadline, I would like to add that
if we are going to authorize the mailing list to be private
* grumpy points @ Julian
<csm-laptop> Julian: the committee can work with a production deadline... but
we can't have those archives publicized (ever) if we're to be
able to speak freely. The eventual product will certainly be
public though.
<grumpy> csm-laptop: understood
<Julian> Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's
mailing list archives shall be kept private.
<csm-laptop> 1558u: second
<Julian> No, stop.
* csm-laptop retracts his second
<Julian> Motion: Resolution #9 is hereby amended such that the committee's
mailing list archives shall be kept private, and that the
committee is advised to present their recommendations before
2005-02-01.
<csm-laptop> 1559u: second
<grumpy> looks good to me
<csm-laptop> votes?
<grumpy> 1559u yes
<MarkK> 1559u: yes
<Julian> 1559u: yes
<csm-laptop> so ordered
<Julian> Thank you.Vote log for 2005-02-09 amendment | >> |
<csm> I have been undergoing some significant changes in my personal life
<csm> I will not detail them here
<csm> this has been going on for several weeks
<csm> all has settled down now...
<csm> I will have a routine again
<csm> so
<csm> here is what I ask re: AMSG
<csm> give us a 30 day extension...
<Julian> Ok with me.
<csm> not counting this month
<csm> so say March 31st
<Julian> Is that a motion?
<MarkK> no problem here
<csm> I move that the AMSG be given an extension through March 31st 2005
(inclusive)
<grumpy> no problems here either...
<grumpy> seconded
<Julian> 2232u: seconded
<freeside> 2232u: ok
<csm> votes on 2232u?
<grumpy> 2232: yes
<Julian> 2232u: yes
<MarkK> 2232u: yes
<Julian> I think freeside's was a yes.
<Julian> Is 2232u concluded?
<csm> so ordered on 2232u