On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:43 PM, William Hale <s...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:10:23 -0500
Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> wrote:

 This is the spiritual successor to Bryan's "Snowdrift.coop's
 immediate goals" (quoted below), but is a bit broader in scope, so
 I'm starting a new thread.

I know that Aaron mentioned this in a subthread, but I wanted to
re-iterate. This seems like a separate topic of discussion.

Maybe "spiritual successor" was too strong. I agree it's a separate discussion, but think Bryan's email was important context.

Specifically, noting that he was talking about setting goals. The major proposed change is to incorporate more formal goal setting -- which is less of a major change if we're already doing it.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:10:23 -0500
Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> wrote:

 The reality is, each project's constraints will be different. I
 informally propose the following approach to calculate things:

 1. Define an income goal.
 2. Define an patron count goal.
 3. Calculate $pp ($ needed per patron), income/patrons
 4. Calculate match level, $pp / patrons

This is a decent model to consider and it would be nice to have some
graphs in a financial report for Snowdrift.coop

One thing I don't feel I made sufficiently clear: This model (the numbers) is something that each *project* can do. In that sense, it's unrelated to points A and B, which are things that we would do with the *platform.*

It's somewhat easy to confuse these two since right now we are the only project on the platform.


Regarding the topic at hand, I am on the side of "Don't Make Me Think".
Adding any additional pledge settings is contrary to this.

Which pledge settings are we talking about? In either case there's a single pledge/unpledge button.

We have agreed that some method is needed for patrons who want to give

Ack, I'm now regretting my decision to bring this up, since as you've both mentioned that's really a separate discussion.

Aaron wrote:
I think the appeal of set goals for money and patrons is understandable but problematic. Projects and patrons are *shitty* at determining these things. The majority of patrons will be *wrong* about their predictions
about how they'll feel about their budget in the long-term even. The
point of the budget is to just give them needed control and assurance.

Also from IRC: Projects would be able to change those goals. Patrons get notifications for each change. If a change would increase the limit per-patron, patrons must confirm that they wish to remain patrons (which encourages projects to adjust their goals by shooting for more patrons at a lower crowdmatch rate, rather than getting each patron to pay more.

We want people to say "I'm in" for the vision and stay involved and see
where things go, staying in as they like the progress and providing
feedback and dropping if unhappy.

The setting of hard goals creates anchor points, pass/fail judgments,
and lots more issues. If these approaches were fundamentally bad, we
wouldn't see them so commonly. But if they really worked well, we
wouldn't see so many problems related to such things.

This is my biggest fear about my proposal. I think my proposal is simpler / easier to scale, but at the expense of being more similar to existing systems and prone to their existing flaws.
Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to