On 08/12/2016 02:28 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>  Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
>>>  kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
>>>  http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1
>> My biggest concern is "carried over from last month" could give the
>> impression that we *do* charge more than the limit for a month, like if
>> the limit is $10 and the crowdmatching gets to $12, we carry over $2 to
>> the next month. Of course, that's not what we're proposing. But I think
>> it needs to be clear that the carry over is only from charges too small
>> to be worth it given fees.
>> I'm not sure how to make that clear, but the point is that the
>> carry-over is only ever funds that could have been charged earlier but
>> we delayed them to minimize fees.
>> The "to next month" parts get this, but the first thing I saw was "from
>> last month" and there it wasn't clear.
> In June of the mockup, it shows a scenario where $pledge + $fees >
> $limit. This would allow someone to accrue a running balance that will
> never be paid off, and violates our "no more than $limit per month"
> rule. I don't think that should ever happen; in that scenario the pledge
> should become suspended.
> However, that is not related to how we present the information on this
> page.

Absolutely, and Stephen's point aligns with mine. The only thing that
should ever be carried over is charges that came from a month that was
too low to be worth charging. We should never carry over fees. The total
of pledges *plus* fee has to be under the limit for a given month to
keep the pledge active.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to