Thanks for putting up these draft rules on meta, Mike - I think they're a great basis to start work on and are good for drawing out the key issues we need to discuss.
I wanted to suggest a few changes on different topics and though it might be useful to fork off into different threads to cover the different areas.
First - age.
The draft rules say:
Guarantor Membership is open to all ... that are over the age of 16 Details required on the Application Form ... Date of Birth (required) ... If under 18, then signature of parent or guardian (required if under 18)
I posted a message on this list about some previous research I had done into under 18 members. (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-October/002883.html) In essence it says that if a person under 18 became a guarantor member and the company went under it would be unable to claim the £1 from that person as the contract would be "voidable" - hence why a counter-signature is needed.
I would like to propose three changes, the first similar to Tom Dalton's comment:
First, remove the limit of 16. I think if someone under 16 wants to join I'm not sure why we should prevent them and I don't see the advantage in restricting membership like this.
Second, rather than requiring the counter-signature of a parent, I suggest we just require a counter-signature of someone over 18. I don't think it needs to be a parent - it's only £1 and as long as someone is happy to cough up that should be fine.
Finally, if the first change is adopted, I don't see the need to ask for a date of birth. Of course this is needed for directors but otherwise I think it is unnecessary. It would also be better from a child protection point of view meaning that someone who gained access to the membership lists wouldn't be able to immediately identify minors. It would also help guard against ID fraud given that they often need dates of birth.
Andrew
Finally, if the first change is adopted, I don't see the need to ask for a date of birth. Of course this is needed for directors but otherwise I think it is unnecessary. It would also be better from a child protection point of view meaning that someone who gained access to the membership lists wouldn't be able to immediately identify minors. It would also help guard against ID fraud given that they often need dates of birth.
If there is a requirement for a signature of someone over 18 then you at least need them to check a box saying "I am over 18" even if they don't give an actual date of birth.
On 31 Oct 2008, at 00:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Finally, if the first change is adopted, I don't see the need to ask for a date of birth. Of course this is needed for directors but otherwise I think it is unnecessary. It would also be better from a child protection point of view meaning that someone who gained access to the membership lists wouldn't be able to immediately identify minors. It would also help guard against ID fraud given that they often need dates of birth.
If there is a requirement for a signature of someone over 18 then you at least need them to check a box saying "I am over 18" even if they don't give an actual date of birth.
I've updated the page to remove the requirement for a date of birth, replacing it instead with a checkbox.
Thanks, Mike
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org