|
Grex > Coop10 > #72: Validating Institutional Members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 96 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 96:
| 
Jan 28 21:20 UTC 1998 |
Informal groups may do what you describe without asking and without grex's
knowledge, and I presume they have.
|
scg
|
|
response 51 of 96:
|
Jan 28 23:15 UTC 1998 |
I'm also ammused by the statement in the voted on policy that ping doesn't
have much potential for abuse. We in fact aren't allowing anybody to run it,
because it can be abused so easily.
|
gerund
|
|
response 52 of 96:
|
Jan 29 01:29 UTC 1998 |
So then pardon me for asking, since I really have no clue, but isn't that a
violation of the result of the vote?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 96:
|
Jan 29 08:33 UTC 1998 |
Not really - the policy says those things *should* be made available, not
that they will be. Consequently, access to those services are subject
freedly to staff choice, unless overruled by the board (or by a vote).
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 96:
|
Jan 29 19:59 UTC 1998 |
I'm going to enter a new item to pick up the thread of discussion about
the 1994 access policy in general.
I don't want to lose the thread of discussion about multiple member accounts
here.
|
janc
|
|
response 55 of 96:
|
Jan 29 20:06 UTC 1998 |
This thread is now in item 72.
|
janc
|
|
response 56 of 96:
|
Jan 29 20:07 UTC 1998 |
Oops, 75.
|
janc
|
|
response 57 of 96:
|
Jan 29 20:07 UTC 1998 |
Oops. Item 76. I'm sure this time.
|
gerund
|
|
response 58 of 96:
|
Jan 29 23:55 UTC 1998 |
re #53 - Thanks for clarifying! :)
|
gibson
|
|
response 59 of 96:
|
Jan 30 05:18 UTC 1998 |
I don't see the point of a second access, if you already can get on
then what benefit is another access?
|
aruba
|
|
response 60 of 96:
|
Jan 30 08:19 UTC 1998 |
Well, clearly it's not for everyone. But as I said, at least 3 people have
asked about it in the last year, so clearly some people think it would be
important to them. I think their motives range from wanting to give more
money to Grex (to which there are no real barriers) to wanting to be able to
maintain two separate identities, both with full Internet access.
|
other
|
|
response 61 of 96:
|
Jan 30 13:16 UTC 1998 |
i think the primary cause at issue is if a person is the contact for an
organization which maintains an account, and that person wants a personal
account to which the other members of the organization do not have access.
the discussion arises out of the potential for abuse of that arrangement, say
if a person claims to be the contact for several organizations, and maintains
an account for each. the limits to potential abuse are few but substantive.
to wit: for full access, even without a vote, each account must be paid for.
this is a major deterrent to abuse. we do ask for organizational validation,
and even if the organization is unable to provide it, the fact that we ask
is somewhat of a deterrant for most folks.
|
other
|
|
response 62 of 96:
|
Jan 30 13:17 UTC 1998 |
oops s/deterrant/deterrent
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 96:
|
Jan 30 16:09 UTC 1998 |
I am the contact for four organizations using grex, and I have a personal
account. Am I being abused? Use me as an example - what's the issue?
|
janc
|
|
response 64 of 96:
|
Jan 30 21:32 UTC 1998 |
I don't think there is a problem with a person having a personal membership
and being the contact person for an institutional account.
I think #60 states the motives of the people involved more accurately.
|
aruba
|
|
response 65 of 96:
|
Jan 30 21:55 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, I think you're mistaken in #61, Eric. We have taken care of legitimate
institutions quite nicely, I think, so that what Rane's doing, for instance,
is more than just OK, it's very welcome. I think the people we haven't taken
care of are the ones who want to access the net from multiple personal
accounts. Whether they are numerous enough to worry about is certainly a
legitimate question.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 96:
|
Jan 31 07:27 UTC 1998 |
What is the "worry" about users that *want* to have multiple personal
accounts? That is, is there a real problem to address?
|
valerie
|
|
response 67 of 96:
|
Jan 31 13:59 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 68 of 96:
|
Jan 31 16:14 UTC 1998 |
I think we should work on whatever we need to do to allow *all* verified users
to have Internet access. Then multiple personal accounts becomes a non-issue.
|
dang
|
|
response 69 of 96:
|
Jan 31 16:45 UTC 1998 |
I don't think we will *ever* be to the point where anyone can have internet
access for free. If we were to do that, I suspect we'd see our wonderful ISDN
fill up so fast it would make our heads spin.
|
scg
|
|
response 70 of 96:
|
Jan 31 17:58 UTC 1998 |
I agree with Dan about the problems it would cause, and I'm also not convinced
that it would make sense even if there were some way to make it work. When
I first got on Grex several years ago, it was wonderful that Grex was
providing Internet e-mail, because that wasn't something that was generally
available to people who weren't connected to the University. Now, with much
better Net access than Grex could provide available for around $12 per month,
Internet access really isn't an important service for Grex to provide. I
would much rather see us do a good job of running a conferencing system, than
a bad job of trying to so something lots of other companies are doing.
|
aruba
|
|
response 71 of 96:
|
Jan 31 20:06 UTC 1998 |
Re #66: Well, the "worry" is just that there are people who would like us to
provide something we don't. Maybe we should just tell them they're out of
luck, or maybe not. That's what I'd like to see this item resolve.
I think at the moment there are 3 options:
a) "status quo": Members may have only one personal account with Internet
access.
b) "free pseudos": Members may tell the treasurer the names of their
pseudo accounts, and the treasurer will add them to the internet group.
c) "for pay pseudos": Members may pay extra for each pseudo account that
they would like to have internet access.
I'm leaning toward option b), though it's a little more work for the
treasurer to keep track of the pseudos, and it doesn't bring in any extra
money for Grex. Option a) would be OK with me too, but option c) seems
like selling internet access to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 96:
|
Jan 31 21:22 UTC 1998 |
I vote for option a)
I'd word that differently, however. There are now two kinds of members,
individual and institutional, and no definition of a "personal" account.
The status quo is that individual and institutional members may each
have just one account with internet access.
|
dang
|
|
response 73 of 96:
|
Feb 1 03:37 UTC 1998 |
I agree with Rane.
|
gibson
|
|
response 74 of 96:
|
Feb 1 04:13 UTC 1998 |
I think limiting access to members is a good idea. I fail to see any
benefit to multiple access and the only drawback i see is tieing up disk space.
|