On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:27:18AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote: > > >> On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > > 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.
I think this is very reasonable, and I totally agree with mray's way of framing the idea of a "limit". I.e. I think it should be stated as, "This is the maximum we will charge your credit card on any given month." So simple. Anything else is really hard to phrase clearly. Stephen said it pretty well: > I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will > be added to your outstanding balance each month." But even that has to be clarified: > That is, carried over matches should *not* be counted towards your > monthly limit, but fees should, in their entirety. Basically the only way to say it with complete clarity is, "Your limit is fuzzy". :) > 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. This, I disagree with. IF we could somehow make the situation totally clear, I would be open to providing the behavior in an opt-in way. It is not necessarily "desperate" or "needy" to give people the option to manage their budget in the way Aaron and Stephen would like. However, I personally find it unlikely we'd hit on something absolutely clear and understandable. There are other ways to handle it, anyway. E.g. maybe the best thing to do is neither exceed the limit nor suspend a pledge, but just charge them $LIMIT and call it good! Or, maybe the best way to provide the option is to HIDE it until the event actually occurs! Then you could tell the user, "Look, we had to <suspend your pledge>/<pay less than your actual> because you rollover from last month PLUS your contribution from this month was greater than your limit. You can fix this by increasing your limit, or by making a one-time monthly payment over your limit, or by choosing to call your limit a "contribution" limit, so your rollover balance doesn't count towards your limit". Yeah, that's terrible. Let's just stick with the limit being a hard limit. Remember that most (Americans) have less than $1000 savings. I'm barely over that number myself, now. If we really want to support people of all economic means, we can't expect them to comfortably plan a year's budget in advance, or even three months' budget in advance. I need a monthly limit to be a hard limit.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
