'''Wayne Schlitt''' is mandated to act as the official ''Editor'' for the SPFv1 internet standard.
| | An official ''SPFv1'' specification shall be created, prepared by a series of drafts based on <tt>[[http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200406.txt|spf-draft-200406]]</tt> (the last official draft from before the council's formation) and input from the project community, and bound by any council resolutions. This specification shall be submitted to the ''[[http://www.ietf.org|Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]]'' for ratification as an internet standard. No other ''SPFv1'' specification shall be considered official, or submitted to any standards body in the name of the SPF project.
|
(Proposed on 2004-12-22 by Wayne Schlitt. Passed unanimously.)
| | (Proposed on 2004-12-22 by Wayne Schlitt, passed unanimously. [[Action:browse&diff=1&id=Council_Resolution/17&revision=2&diffrevision=1|First amendment]] proposed on 2005-02-09 by Chuck Mead, passed by majority.)
|
| |
<+> Vote log for 2005-02-09 amendment
<pre><freeside> i suggest the directorate go ahead and examine whatever they want
to examine. MS would prefer that the directorate examine the
Lentczner draft.
<freeside> i suggest Wayne do another rev anyway and keep submitting that to
the directorate.
<freeside> and i suggest we leave the decision up to the IETF.
<Julian> Does the IETF care which draft outside people want them to review?
<freeside> yes, the IETF does care.
<Julian> I mean, does it make sense to lobby the IETF with regard to such
things?
<csm> then I suggest we press the IETF to take Waynes draft
<Julian> csm: Agreed.
<MarkK> csm: agreed
<grumpy> I have a lot of problems with the lentczner draft. It changes
things in the way spf-classic works.
<grumpy> csm: agreed.
<freeside> i will tell the directorate that if they want to consider sender
id, they should use the lentczner draft as part of that kit. i
will also tell the directorate they should also consider the
schlitt draft, or the next rev of it, at any rate.
<freeside> and the final decision can be with them.
<freeside> how does that sound?
<grumpy> I don't like it.
<freeside> because they can't really consider sender id using the schlitt
draft.
<grumpy> draft-lentczner and draft-schlitt conflict on a lot of things.
<MarkK> wayne, we are past that already: we already agreed and voted on to
do your draft; I feel no need for us, whatsoever, to retalk about
rewriting your draft to accommodate the lentczner draft
<MarkK> I say we push to the wayne draft with the IETF
<Julian> No, the MarkL draft talks about v=spf1 records. It cannot seriously
be considered if this legitimizes the use of v=spf1 records for RFC
2822 identities any more than draft-schlitt-spf-classic does.
<csm> motion: promote waynes draft (series?) with the IETF
<Julian> MarkK: Agreed. We voted to make Wayne the editor for a reason.
<Julian> 2341u: seconded
<csm> votes?
<Julian> 2341u: yes
<MarkK> 2341u: yes
<grumpy> 2341u: yes
<csm> 2341u: yes
<Julian> Hey, csm didn't abstain.
<grumpy> heh
<csm> I don't have to abstain
<Julian> csm: I know. It is still noteworthy. :)
<csm> freeside?
<freeside> 2341u: abstain
<csm> motion is carried
<freeside> woot</pre>
</+>
|
