I want to clarify overall: First, the short answer "oh, you have a budget for the system" is 99% of the time completely satisfactory to the people who ask the "what if it gets hugely popular and I have to pay so much?" question.
In other words, it is not accurate to present that question as "the first question we get asked" implying that it's an outstanding concern. It's not a concern at all. If we say "you have a budget for the system" when we explain the system, then that question doesn't even get asked in the first place. now… There are other questions that get asked that are more worth discussing. Such as "what if a project gets really popular and eats up my budget, leaving less for others?" and that's where we talk about how consensus is *good* and we work against fragmentation but that we have ideas for managing this in the long run if needed, such as the possibility of categorical budgets or per-project budgets, etc. this is not as simple a question. The real question that was brought up here is "what about niche projects? I may want to support some popular thing, but I *really* care more about doing all I can for this niche project where fewer people will join me. Can I set different pledge levels for different projects?" And for that question, our current answer is: "We're concerned about that, but our core design will probably work best for the most popular projects, so we're aiming to make that successful first. However, we have considered varying pledge levels, it's just that it adds complexity that is harder to manage, explain, and more." And that's more what the current discussion is about.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
