On 09/23/2015 03:34 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> Either you are all >> good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over >> inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again, or you >> can zero-out. Fine. Sounds good to me! > > I like the simplicity about this approach as well. > But it would be elegant to have only *one* kind of money transfer. > If there is anything else besides pledging we only add complexity that > needs explanation and justification. > > If there *has* to be some way to transfer the money outside of the > pledging system it should not build up extra pressure on the user. > Maybe a time frame of 2 years without logging in could result in > donating the "rest" to snowdrift.coop then. > > The user should have total supervision and never be pressured. >
Yes, the proposal as I understand it (and like it), is that the only automatic zero-ing out of funds would be after a *substantial* time when the account can be considered "inactive". Otherwise, the *manual* zero-ing out is not available as a regular thing that we emphasize. It would be something connected with manually *closing* your account. Stephen also suggested essentially a "vacation" mode if you will, i.e. a situation where someone zeros their account because they sort of want to effectively close their account but still be able to come pick it up some substantial time later. My view is: I don't think we need to build that function right away. If we don't have that option, then it just means some underfunded account sits inactive for a while until the time-limit where we automatically zero it out. So, indeed the very simplest is just that underfunded situations means pledges are already inactive entirely. We don't need to do automatic zero-out right away, it can be delayed for a long time, and the other aspect of zeroing out is just when someone closes their account entirely. Now, let's clarify though. There's one main issue that the *current* proposal (not Stephen's) addresses: if a project gets super popular today and tomorrow is the payout, and so today my account becomes underfunded because of this new popularity, and I only have one day to adjust my pledge or update my funds if I want to stay a continuous patron without any missed months. In that situation, counting the zero-out as still being a patron gives me one more whole month to adjust things so that I stay always a patron. If we *don't* count the zero-out (or don't automatically do it at all), then it could mean I am marked in the history as missing a month… So, here's a middle-ground: we still do the zero-out *automatically*, and we still mark the person a patron for the sake of showing the length of time they've been a patron, but we don't count them for matching. That seems too confusing to explain and track though. Really, we just need to get the prototype fully functioning so we can see what issues are most important via real experience. Is it more important that all pledges count plainly, no confusion, no underfunded-but-still-counts and no underfunded-pays-out-but-doesn't count… or is it more important to assure that there's always a month buffer for patrons to react and adjust before they stop counting. Really, it's a matter of those two values and which is more important. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
