|
Grex > Coop11 > #245: ID requirements for institutional members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 35 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 11 of 35:
| 
Mar 14 19:04 UTC 2001 |
(I think #9 is a good compromise.)
|
scg
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Mar 14 19:43 UTC 2001 |
If we want to continue requiring ID, #9 is probably a good compromise.
However, the Internet is a very diffrent entity now than it was in 1995, and
a policy based on the theoretically closed Internet of 1995 probably ought
to be revisited.
|
flem
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Mar 15 02:59 UTC 2001 |
I'd think that the normal ID requirements would be fine for institutional
members, i.e. we have to make a good faith effort to ensure that we know the
name and contact info of a real person who is voluntarily associated with the
account. After all, what's the difference between a member with a driver's
license calling itself "Foobar, Inc." and a member with a driver's license
calling himself "Greg Fleming"? The fact that the first person has
voluntarily chosen to waive voting priveleges in exchange for having the
membership be "in someone else's name" doesn't seem to be overly significant
to me, as far as security and accountability policies are concerned.
|
mdw
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Mar 15 07:52 UTC 2001 |
In 1995, it wasn't clear exactly what sort of internet abuse we might
need to worry about. In 2001 it's much clearer in some ways. We don't
need to worry so much about "smart" vandals, because they've been
enormously diluted by the pool of available systems. On the other hand,
cookbook vandals are much more common. UCE and various commercial fraud
schemes are also much more common now than then. In the case that
appears to have inspired this item, it seems possible that we're dealing
with a potential spammer. That has interesting implications - spamming
isn't, precisely, against the law, but it would almost certainly result
in our losing our internet connectivity.
In the past, we've tried not to get too bogged down in defining just
what "bad" behavior is, and in many cases, we've tried to give people
the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't always practical; some people
will take an inch, and assume it means a mile.
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Mar 15 08:57 UTC 2001 |
It should be noted that there's been no evidence at all that the case that
inspired this item has anything to do with spam. That's the conspiracy
theorists going wild.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Mar 15 11:56 UTC 2001 |
Long term, it would be reasonable to revisit our ID requirements
policy. Short term, we need a policy *now* to deal with an
existing situation, and I think what we should aim for is a
policy that's a consistent and reasonable extension of our ID
requirements for individuals. Colleen's suggestion in resp:9
sounds good to me.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Mar 15 11:58 UTC 2001 |
(Since the board is meeting in less than a week, I recommend
that they enact a policy and that it be applied to any pending
requests for institutional membership.)
|
mary
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Mar 15 12:51 UTC 2001 |
I like Colleen's proposed solution too.
|
flem
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Mar 15 16:37 UTC 2001 |
Fair enough.
|
don
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Mar 16 04:45 UTC 2001 |
If the institution paid, it would have most likely done it by check, which
currently is an acceptable form of ID for personal memberships. Why isn't this
good enough for institutions? Or did this institution mail six crisp
sequential dollar bills in an envelope with no return address?
|
aruba
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Mar 16 04:50 UTC 2001 |
I don't feel comfortable going into the specifics of a payment here in coop.
That's why this is an item about a general policy on ID for institutional
members.
|
carson
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Mar 16 15:48 UTC 2001 |
re #20: (reading between aruba's lines, I'm guessing that the address
[or other information] wasn't preprinted on the check recieved.
but that's just idle speculation on my part.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Mar 16 19:18 UTC 2001 |
Regarding Collen's suggestion in #9: I think requiring two people may be one
too many. We might potentially have an istitutional member which really
only *has* one person. And we certainly have institutional members which
are not full-fledged corporations, so I don't think we should require
specific corporate officers to sign. In other words, I think whatever
policy we adopt should be broad enough to include small and informal
organizations.
That said, we don't want to be hoodwinked, either.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Mar 16 20:28 UTC 2001 |
Any small and informal organization that only has one member is hardly an
organization. Even not-for-profits who are not tax exempt have to have two
officers to be considered an organization in Michigan. And those have to be
a president and a secretary IIRC.
Any small and informal business that only has one member is a sole
proprietorship, and I suppose we are allowing businesses as members. Or are
we? I don't remember exactly what we voted on.
|
aruba
|
|
response 25 of 35:
|
Mar 16 21:16 UTC 2001 |
The amended bylaws don't put any restrictions on what kind of institutions
may become members.
I could be talked into requiring two people to sign. But it might be a
burden for small organizations, and it's more ID than we require from
individual members (and they have more privileges).
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 35:
|
Mar 16 21:20 UTC 2001 |
Er, that is, I could be talked into believing it's a good idea to require
two IDs from institutional members. Of course I will do whatever the board
and the membership decide we should do.
|
mary
|
|
response 27 of 35:
|
Mar 16 22:50 UTC 2001 |
With organizational memberships are we in effect sanctioning multiple
users with one login ID. I think that's a fine thing to allow but I also
think with that it is appropriate to expect two people with some authority
in the organization to more or less accept some responsibility for who
uses the account.
|
aruba
|
|
response 28 of 35:
|
Mar 22 04:12 UTC 2001 |
The board voted to require institutional members to designate a contact
person who must send in ID. I modified the membership FAQ to explain this
- see http://www.cyberspace.org/memfaq.html#institutional .
|
srw
|
|
response 29 of 35:
|
Mar 25 22:02 UTC 2001 |
Grammar alert (from the memfaq)
Institutions which -> Institutions that
|
gelinas
|
|
response 30 of 35:
|
Mar 25 22:54 UTC 2001 |
Both are correct, last I heard. "Which" is the relative pronoun for
non-humans; "whom" is the relative pronouns for humans; "that" is a relative
pronoun for both. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.
|
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 35:
|
Mar 25 23:43 UTC 2001 |
I've never gotten the hang of which/that, so I'll take your word for it,
Steve. I made the change.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 32 of 35:
|
Mar 26 03:03 UTC 2001 |
View hidden response.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 33 of 35:
|
Mar 26 03:13 UTC 2001 |
According to current usage (different from the 1960s when I first
learned) " which" is the relative pronoun which connects the dependant
clause, "that" connects the independant clause. Use which when the
meaning of the sentence requires you to read the clause to make sense; use
that when the meaning of the sentence is fine without the clause.
In the previous paragraph "which" is used correctly in the first
sentence. (The previous remark was expurgated becaue I had inadvertently
entered it when I meant to edit it. I was trying to change my orginal
"that" in the first sentence to "which".)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 35:
|
Mar 26 14:56 UTC 2001 |
If it's the sentence I think it is, "Institutions that" reads better than
"Institutions which." The sentence continues, "become members . . . "
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 35 of 35:
|
Mar 27 00:09 UTC 2001 |
Yep, that's the sentence. New usage is "which" instead of the "that" which
you and I are used to. Lost a fight to an editor on this one.
|