On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote: > During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works. > I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work: > > I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch it > *never ever*. A decision by the user to set a monthly limit trumps > "hidden costs" always, no matter if we frame the limit as "pledge limit" > or "total limit" or whatever else. If payment fees and carried over > matches would break the limit we need to suppress it as usual: auto > un-match until there is no more problem. > > If the user sets a limit she is free to set it higher if that is what > she wants! Crowdmatching itself already is a mechanism that asks to hand > over control, the remaining limit cannot be subject to be overridden by > even more rules. > > > What are your thoughts on this? > >
I was mostly concerned about the idea that a one-time thing (a carry-over) would affect the ongoing thing (the suspension of pledges). Like if my pledges are $9 and I have a one-time $2 carry-over with a $10 max, the idea that we *suspend* a pledge just so that we process the carry-over seems awkward and unfortunate. With the one-time carry-over processed, everything can go forward next month as is, if there's no changes. Having said that, and not having a problem with the carry-over going over max for myself as a patron, I think you are right, Robert. I generally oppose "hide the weirdness" in that I want people to see behind the curtains and know what's really going on (which is why I want the fees itemized for the patrons, not hidden in any way). But I accept that this is a case where the absolute hard max charge in any given month is going to just be the most comfortable, respectable experience for patrons. The question becomes: is it more annoying to have pledges suspended over a one-time carry-over or more annoying to get charged a little extra more than the max? I suspect it varies among patrons. I think this is a case where eventually having an *option* to say "allow carry-overs to go beyond my max so as to not suspend pledges" would be something some people would want. That said, I think it's a bad idea to get into this right now. I support going with Robert's view that we include fees and carry-overs in the total when determining suspensions in order to keep everything below the max that is set. I think that's the cleanest initial way to go. (Yes, that is a change from what I expressed in the meeting) Happy to hear others' views.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss