On 08/02/2016 05:58 PM, James Sheldon wrote:
> When are transaction fees charged?  When you add money or when it is
> assigned to a project?

This is assuming a charge-in-arrears approach where we avoid holding
money which has all sorts of legal challenges once we go beyond our one
project. So, there is no separate adding of money, there's only monthly
charges of the funds that will all go to projects for that month.

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to