[Osmf-talk] Articles of Association Update 2.0

[Christoph (TheFive@OSM)]

Hi  Oleksiy,

The result opinion of the OSMF is the mixture of individual opinion :-), so is it positive to have different viewpoints.

I am not talking about „not take any risk, and having no chance“. For a „Developer“ Point of view my scenario is a
TestSczenario to check the articles, wether they can handle this exception or not.

But reading the articles (sometimes it is better to read before) there is a clear rule, "Associated Membership is
available to all natural persons“. That a „natural person“ can’t be a member twice is implicit.

Christoph 



Am 30.07.2014 um 11:34 schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev <oleksiy.muzalyev at bluewin.ch>:

> Hi Christoph,
> 
> I certainly cannot agree with you more that it is necessary to be careful, that it is better to be safe than sorry.
> 
> On the other hand, in this article http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/06/18/take-a-risk-the-odds-are-better-than-you-think/ Margie Warrell writes that: "We over-estimate the probability of something going wrong."
> 
> 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. "
> 
> I understood from the article that in her opinion there could be a risk in not taking one, in being too cautious.
> 
> brgds
> O.
> 
> 
> On 30.07.2014 8:01, Christoph (TheFive at OSM) wrote:
>> ... , it is very easy to „buy“ a vote by generating (see above) associated members.
>> (no problem for CompanY X to tell 100 People to become a member and reimburse the cost by travel expenses).
>> 
>> This does not prevent a „planned“ attack, of course.
>> ...
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20140731/67732c44/attachment.html>