Barry Leiba wrote:
Eliot has set us up for a conference call this Thursday, 17 Jan, as we'd
originally scheduled back in December (actually, we'd planned to start
on 10 Jan, but we didn't make that; see "delay" above). It'll go along
with a jabber meeting, for which we'll use the normal DKIM jabber chat
room, < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >.
Actually, you originally said January 3. Then we heard nothing about the
matter for a month. That was the last note I see posted on this matter from
your or Steve, with no resolution as to schedule:
Barry Leiba wrote:
Barry Leiba said:
I should point out that we're off by ONE DAY on the 30-day notice issue.
If you think we should toss out the 9 Jan session on that basis, OK,
we will.
...
Still, the rest of what I said stands: If any participants, or the ADs,
think that 23 days' notice isn't sufficient, or that 3 Jan is too close
to the new year, we can lose that one and start on 10 Jan.
So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice really is
required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow acceptable. (RFC2418,
Section 3.1
And no, this isn't about being a stickler about the rules. It's about being
inclusive.
Using the two "rejected" issues as metrics, it looks a lot as if we aren't
really trying to resolve issues on the mailing list. That's a mistake, since
that is the most inclusive channel.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
