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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to