<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Oleksiy,<div><br></div><div>The result opinion of the OSMF is the mixture of individual opinion :-), so is it positive to have different viewpoints.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not talking about „not take any risk, and having no chance“. For a „Developer“ Point of view my scenario is a</div><div>TestSczenario to check the articles, wether they can handle this exception or not.</div><div><br></div><div>But reading the articles (sometimes it is better to read before) there is a clear rule, "Associated Membership is</div><div>available to all natural persons“. That a „natural person“ can’t be a member twice is implicit.</div><div><br></div><div>Christoph </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>Am 30.07.2014 um 11:34 schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev <<a href="mailto:oleksiy.muzalyev@bluewin.ch">oleksiy.muzalyev@bluewin.ch</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Christoph,<br>
<br>
I certainly cannot agree with you more that it is necessary to be
careful, that it is better to be safe than sorry.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, in this article <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/06/18/take-a-risk-the-odds-are-better-than-you-think/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/06/18/take-a-risk-the-odds-are-better-than-you-think/</a>
Margie Warrell writes that: "We over-estimate the probability of
something going wrong."<br>
<br>
She continues: "We exaggerate the consequences of what might
happen if it does go wrong. ... We under estimate our ability to
handle the consequences of risk. ... We discount or deny the cost
of inaction, and sticking with the status quo. "<br>
<br>
I understood from the article that in her opinion there could be a
risk in not taking one, in being too cautious.<br>
<br>
brgds<br>
O.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30.07.2014 8:01, Christoph (TheFive@OSM) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1220668E-64AD-4345-B9EA-993B428316EB@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
... , it is very easy to „buy“ a vote by generating (see above)
associated members.
<div>(no problem for CompanY X to tell 100 People to become a
member and reimburse the cost by travel expenses).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This does not prevent a „planned“ attack, of course.</div>
...<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>