On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote: > > On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote: > > > >On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote: > >> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote: > >>> > >>> On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote: > >>>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we > >>>>>> only charge if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the > >>>>>> total". > >>>>> > >>>>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a > >>>>> bit weak. But I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a > >>>>> percentage that makes you strongly prefer it? I still think a > >>>>> level of indirection is a good thing. It almost always is in > >>>>> software. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy. > >>>> > >>>> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes > >>>> no fee, and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. > >>>> But say there was a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I > >>>> guess we'd accept that at any level if we felt it was okay to > >>>> use (even though that would be higher fee for medium and higher > >>>> charges vs Stripe). But since this is all post-MVP, we can > >>>> ignore this point. > >>>> > >>>> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees > >>>> as percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee > >>>> (even though that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real > >>>> justification besides "we can" for taking a full 5% of a > >>>> $10,000,000 project given that their costs are about the same > >>>> as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the merits of fixed > >>>> amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the common thing > >>>> people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own > >>>> charts at > >>>> https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding > >>>> > >>>> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area > >>>> of this though. > >>>> > >>> I support Michaels view of preferring percentage. We need to > >>> have a simple, clear agenda across all current or future payment > >>> processors. A plain dollar might be clearer for one service, but > >>> as soon as there are more it gets confusing. > >>> > >>> We should be able to promise: "Fees are never over 10%. Ever." > >>> That will always make sense and does not seem arbitrary. > >>> > >>> > >> Where are we tracking design decisions like this so that we know > >> what the plan is once we get to implementing or even just mocking > >> things up? > >> > > > >I don't know we are doing this at all. But you're right, we > >probably should do. > > Imo we should do this in the wiki. Using any other location adds the > additional work of making sure that the wiki is up to date with the > other location.
Actually, I've been using Issues to capture decisions. See e.g. "Communicate that fees will never be more than 10% of a total charge": https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/issue/461 I believe that capturing requirements out of discussions should be an accountability of the project and/or product managers. I've been doing it, however imperfectly.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
