On 03.08.2016 04:13, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>  I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will be
>>>  added to your outstanding balance each month." That is, carried over
>>>  matches should *not* be counted towards your monthly limit, but fees
>>>  should, in their entirety.
>> Well said. Even though I have some willingness to defer to Robert and
>> see his view…
> Me, too! Curious about Michael's view as well.

By definition the carry over is lower than the limit where fees make
sense - I expect this to be low.
For this low amount of money to trigger an unfortunate un-matching the
total would have to be full to the brim already. This will hardly
happen, and IF it happens it is only an indicator of a bad situation
that will soon get an auto-un-match anyway. There is not much to gain.

This corner case of a corner case is *NOT* worth breaking the *ONE*
limit the user trusts us with!

I would want to be able to make a promise to honor the limit *without
any restraints*. We can do that. Not doing it makes us look desperate or
needy. People setting a $10 limit should never find a $11 transaction
fee in their payment processors accounting. No matter what wordplays we
come up on our site to differentiate between "monthly pledge" or
"monthly total".

If we let the user set a limit we need a darn good reason to ignore it
*ever*. This is not a good reason.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to