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

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to