On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 03:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> 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.
> I think something is getting lost here.  I'll try to find it in previous
> emails but we have definitely discussed a scenario where we need to
> carry over to the next month in order to gradually get rid of carry over
> from previous months, which would initially have exceeded the limit. 
> Let me see if I can find what I'm referring to...

Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:

On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 05:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Whenever there needs to be a carry-over, we use the difference
>> between a month's charges and any outstanding carry-over from
>> previous to reach up to the max, and thus widdle-away the carry-over >
> over multiple months if need be.
> Error in my wording: I meant "the difference between the max and the
> current month's charges as the amount of any carry-over that is
> available to be charged in a given month"

That's what I intended to depict, but I see that how June 2016 doesn't
do that correctly and instead depicts a situation that shouldn't ever
exist.  Thanks for catching it, Stephen.  The "widdle-away" approach
means we *can* carry over to the next month to avoid exceeding the
limit, but only from any amount carried over to this month from the
previous month.  I'll update it to depict that scenario.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to