Subject: Problematic issues with regard to last call

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:44:38 -0400

MARID participants,

There have been a few problematic statements during this last call 
period that need to be addressed.

First, some of the issues raised are premised on the issue of scope... 
as in Sender ID does not do X when X is not something Sender ID ever 
intended to do.  That whole argument could be applied to any MARID 
output and even to the MARID charter itself.  While such opinions are 
valid and in most cases factual, they are misplaced at this time.

Second, there have been a few messages soliciting polls and requesting 
adjusted timelines.  We ask that participants refrain from deviating 
the working group from its last call period.  While you may feel 
passionate about a certain issue, please be considerate of the process. 
  The co-chairs are interested in reading thoughtful opinions and not 
just raised hands or parroted thought.  Additionally, timelines have 
been set to accommodate individuals who may not be available at this 
week due to vacation, travel, or numerous other reasonable absences 
from an Internet connection.

Finally, some participants have outright stated that they are 
interested only in the advancement of a competing specification to 
Sender ID while others have not said so much but have taken a similar 
tone.  This is most offensive and counter to the notion of finding a 
consensus-based standard.  Many individuals in this working group have 
worked very hard to find common ground, and this unilateralism is 
unfair to them.  If it is your intent to be unwavering and steadfast in 
your opinion no matter the discourse of the issues, we ask that you 
disengage from this working group.

-andy

---

From: George Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:57:47 -0700 (PDT)

> [...]  If it is your intent to be unwavering and steadfast in 

Well, golly, I think this might refer to me.  It might refer to a
number of people who object to the license agreement under discussion.
Certainly if all of us leave, that will resolve the lack of consensus
on the licensing issue.  Is that what you are requesting?
-- George Mitchell

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:17:03 -0400

> on the licensing issue.  Is that what you are requesting?

I can see how you would be upset given that you took my statement out 
of context.

-andy

---

From: Paul Iadonisi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:29:06 -0400

> on the licensing issue.  Is that what you are requesting?

  Well, that's not how I took it.  I think it's referring more to post
of the sort that say 'give me SPF-Classic/SRS or give me death'.  I
don't think my own posts fall into that category, but I could be wrong. 
I suggested it as an alternative, but only to point out that we DO have
alternatives here and that the IPR issues with Sender-ID are
sufficiently show stopper to step back not submit it at this time.  Even
if *nothing* is submitted at this time, that would be fine with me, but
it's just too soon for Sender-ID, given that the patent licenses was
only published at the beginning of Last Call.
  Aside to Andrew Newton: no, I took no offense to your correction of my
statement about 'endorsing the kind of vagueness...'.  No problem.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets

---

From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:23:32 -0700

Paul Iadonisi wrote:

>of the sort that say 'give me SPF-Classic/SRS or give me death'. 
>

    What is wrong with that kind of post ?

    Poor, illogical or emotional based argument is a problem.
    flames and abusive argument is a problem.
   
    But was is holding fast to a particular position so long as it is 
reasoned and supported a problem ?
   
    It would be a very good thing to get Microsoft on board for this 
standard. It is highly likely without their support this standard
    will die and the net result will be alot of SPF-Classic 
implimentations, and a few big caller-id implimentations - and maybe a 
few mixed implimentations.
    But the best result for everybody is a universally agreed on 
standard. However if the standard results in something that does not 
have the support of FOSS
    the end result will be atleast as bad.

    The GPL and most FOSS licenses are not only a license but the 
expression of a set of values concerning software. No one should be 
expected to compromise there
    values and principles to reach a consensus. We are supposed to 
compromise on issues that we do not consider to be core values - even 
though the compromises still
    may involve sacrifice.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:50 -0400 (EDT)

Very well then, can you rephrase your statment to be more concise?  
Because George is not the only person who took it "out of context", 
because that is *exactly* how I saw your message:  "Agree or get lost"

Terry

-- 
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[email-masked]
Fax (416) 441-9085

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:17:49 -0400

> reasoned and supported a problem ?

Nothing is wrong with that.  But holding to a position regardless of 
reason only leads to dogmatic standoffs.

-andy