tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post2275815467783283971..comments2023-08-26T05:04:33.009-04:00Comments on anti-virus rants: whose yer memberskurt wismerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03810635947269551517noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post-52547504675863581592010-07-15T08:32:44.175-04:002010-07-15T08:32:44.175-04:00I wasn't involved with the design of that page...I wasn't involved with the design of that page, so I can't say that was a specific intention Since at that time, AMTSO probably had no public image at all worth mentioning, I don't suppose it was.<br /><br />Since the price of a higher public profile seems to be that we attract more and more criticism, I guess image management is becoming a priority, so maybe some hapless volunteer is going to have to take on yet another job. It won't be me though. This camel has enough straws to carry for the moment.David Harleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post-46443069141235348782010-07-15T07:31:32.221-04:002010-07-15T07:31:32.221-04:00@david harley:
"I don't think there's...@david harley:<br />"I don't think there's a specific rule that says members or entity representatives do or don't have to be listed: it's simply administratively easier to keep it simple."<br /><br />so the membership page currently lists companies instead of individuals because that's less work to maintain? that's pretty much what i guessed might be the reason why, but there's a cost to taking that shortcut - that being that you present an image of a coalition of (mostly vendor) companies which seems to be an inaccurate portrayal of reality. that makes for poor image management.kurt wismerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03810635947269551517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post-47337043261122712782010-07-15T04:39:33.229-04:002010-07-15T04:39:33.229-04:00Members can be individuals or entities: individual...Members can be individuals or entities: individuals represent themselves and are listed by name, whereas people who represent entities aren't members, and they can and do change over time (probalbly more often than WildList reporters do). I don't think there's a specific rule that says members or entity representatives do or don't have to be listed: it's simply administratively easier to keep it simple. Ashe's suggestion sounds feasible, though I'm not sure of the legal ramifications.<br /><br />One vote per entity or individual <i>is</i> an explicit rule.David Harleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post-718156021553898252010-07-14T18:39:33.918-04:002010-07-14T18:39:33.918-04:00OR... if your intention is to limit representation...OR... if your intention is to limit representation in voting to one vote per organization, you could simply explicitly make that a rule.kurt wismerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03810635947269551517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7347279.post-8523839658522269032010-07-14T18:09:46.109-04:002010-07-14T18:09:46.109-04:00Interesting point kurt - and one that will surely ...Interesting point kurt - and one that will surely be discussed. It really arose from the idea that the company could send any number of representative, but would only be allowed one vote - just imagine if say, K7 sent 20 people, and Eset sent one, and all those individuals had a vote - not particularly sensible way to go. However, those companies tend to be represented by the same (or a few of the same) people in the meetings. One thing that could be considered would be to publish the names of the attendees and their company affiliation after each meeting. I'll bring it up.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133951674213320217noreply@blogger.com