On 10/20/2015 10:09 AM, Stephen Michel wrote: > !IMPORTANT! > First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, OCT 26 > for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in. > > --- > > Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal: > > I hold these to be self-evident. If you agree with me, I don't see what > your objection might be to this proposal. If you disagree, well, this > list makes it easy to say exactly where you disagree. > > 1. People are not confused by different donation levels. They may even > expect them. Ex: > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/demanding > https://elementary.io/ > > 2. Some people would like to donate more. > > 3. "Donate X per patron" is not a hard concept to understand. > > 4. We do not want to unnecessarily handicap ourselves in getting off the > ground (ie, by denying generous patrons the ability to donate more). > > 4a. We do not want to use sleazy tactics to get people to donate more. > > 5. All things equal, we'd prefer to allow the mechanism to function > naturally rather than with our intervention. >
I agree with all these items. > > > Therefore, I propose the following: > > Show 4 donation levels. I *like* the familiar idea of a few simple donation levels in principle. > 1. Minimum. Currently $1 per 1000 users. > 2. Average. This shall be the default / recommended. It is completely > clear how we came to it, is not artificially manipulated (except for the > first user) and provides a higher-than-minimum donation level to help > projects get off the ground. It's not clear to me whether pledging today's average is a set pledge at that level or if it will adjust itself automatically to follow whatever is the average going forward. That confusion itself leads to weird issues. I don't mind the idea of showing, "the current average is 0.5ยข per patron" or something and having that as an option as long as the option is labeled with the number clearly as a fixed pledge. > 3. Double the average. Provides an option for generous donors (rather > than forcing them to decide on a value themselves). Not sure about the "double" idea. > 4. User-entered. Must be minimum or higher (duh). Provides an option for > *extra* generous donors, or those who wish to donate less but not the > minimum. > > Here's a whiteboard sketch I drew of how this might look. I *really* > don't think this is unduly complicated. > > https://img.bi/#/818IWCe!tXPyBZZ4M1n2oqQeZNDSgAtSgOzD44fyGhFBFW6u > > ~Stephen So, overall, I think a few options like this is both ideal in principle and is familiar. However, I see the point that because this is a new system, people will have very poor sense of the ramification of each level. I could imagine people entering $1 per patron and then running out of funds quickly. I think it's *okay* to risk some confusion while we clearly state that this is beta, things are in flux, we may adapt as we go. I think that within the core idea, we *can* launch without getting this perfect as long as we make it clear that things are not fully pinned down. That said, I think there's some sense to perhaps making this less confusing by just offering a few set levels without an arbitrary open-ended box, and skipping the "average" thing. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
