[feedback-report] Revised draft charter, call for participation -- Please comment

[Steve Atkins]

On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: abuse-feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:abuse-
>> feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:44 AM
>> To: ARF mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Revised draft charter, call for
>> participation -- Please comment
>>
>> I'd like to participate if there were fewer deliverables.
>>
>> ARF is, at core, a way of encapsulating a clean copy of a single  
>> email
>> along with some metadata.
>>
>> The extensions you mention as possibilities cannot be added without
>> changing ARF entirely, as they are not things that can be expressed  
>> as
>> a copy of a single email.
>
> The charter doesn't require adoption of any or all of those proposed  
> extensions.  It just makes a commitment to their due consideration.

Yup, and that's perfectly reasonable.

However, I've seen in the past that "the phrasing of the charter  
dictates the end product", and including obviously problematic ideas  
in a charter that is explicitly about ARF is going to lead to, well,  
long and pointless discussions at the very least (which is something  
that makes me less interested in participating).

>
> A spinoff effort to consider the non-messaging extensions that have  
> been proposed also seems quite palatable to me, even if it would be  
> as simple as "here's how to use/extend INCH to do that", since  
> clearly there's a need for it.

If the goal were "How to easily automate abuse reports of these types,  
including use of ARF, INCH and potentially other approaches", rather  
than "How to extend ARF to automate abuse reports of these types" I'd  
lose most of my reservations about the charter. That'd be more likely  
to tread on INCH toes, though, I'm sure, given it's mostly revisiting  
their work.

Cheers,
   Steve