On 12.08.2016 23:28, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
>>> kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
>>>
>>> http://s
On 11.08.2016 17:51, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 08:42 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> I like Stephen's acknowledgement of two issues, but I don't want them to
>> be all that distinct. Hstory is history. People want to review the whole
>> system and understand the interactions. Most of the time, p
On 08/13/2016 08:13 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
>
> On August 13, 2016 12:18:48 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
> wrote:
>> Great idea, incorporated into
>> http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/a87dd65116/?raw=1
>>
>> Not shown in the mockup is what it would say in the simpler case where
>> the full amount
On August 13, 2016 12:18:48 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>
>On 08/13/2016 08:09 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On August 13, 2016 12:57:41 AM EDT, Michael Siepmann
> wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2016 09:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Your concern makes sense to me. I think if we can get a
On 08/13/2016 08:09 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On August 13, 2016 12:57:41 AM EDT, Michael Siepmann
> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 09:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Your concern makes sense to me. I think if we can get an adequate
>> solution to this now, it will be very helpful to have th
On August 13, 2016 12:57:41 AM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>On 08/12/2016 09:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 08:04 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>
>> Let me try to make my view clearer. I think that it is more
>> understandable to think this:
>>
>> "Oh, when things were really low,
On 08/12/2016 09:57 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 09:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 08:04 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>
>> Let me try to make my view clearer. I think that it is more
>> understandable to think this:
>>
>> "Oh, when things were really low, no charges happ
On 08/12/2016 09:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 08:04 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>
> Let me try to make my view clearer. I think that it is more
> understandable to think this:
>
> "Oh, when things were really low, no charges happened, it just added up
> and carried over into the first
On 08/12/2016 08:04 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 08:02 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 06:58 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that this scenario is really hard to parse. It could also result in
>>> a display where you have a carryover from may and a carryove
On 08/12/2016 08:02 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 06:58 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that this scenario is really hard to parse. It could also result in
>> a display where you have a carryover from may and a carryover from June
>> displayed in July, and that gets really
On 08/12/2016 06:58 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
>
> On August 12, 2016 6:54:28 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thr
On August 12, 2016 6:54:28 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:
>>
>> On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On
On 08/12/2016 03:54 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:
>>
>> On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 05
On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>
>
> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:
>
> On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 05:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> Whenever there needs to be a
On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 03:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 02:28 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> Here's a rough-around-the-edges modificat
On 08/12/2016 03:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 02:28 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
kind of information
On 08/12/2016 02:28 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
>>> kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
>>>
>>> http://
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with
the
kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1
My biggest concern
On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
> kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
>
> http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1
>
My biggest concern is "carried over from last month" could give the
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with
the kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1
It's rough-around-the-edges because I have very little experienc
Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:
http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1
It's rough-around-the-edges because I have very little experience with
Inkscape and could not easily figure out how to do certa
On 08/11/2016 08:42 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I like Stephen's acknowledgement of two issues, but I don't want them to
> be all that distinct. Hstory is history. People want to review the whole
> system and understand the interactions. Most of the time, people will be
> wanting to generally review wh
I like Stephen's acknowledgement of two issues, but I don't want them to
be all that distinct. Hstory is history. People want to review the whole
system and understand the interactions. Most of the time, people will be
wanting to generally review what happened why and how the system works.
They wil
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
Some great, intense, back and forth. I ask that Michael and mray pause
your discussion for a moment, because I have another perspective I
want
to throw into the mix that may change the discussion somewhat and I'd
like to avoid you wasting
On 11.08.2016 00:42, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 03:13 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>> To me the simplest answer to "What did I pay last months - and why?" is:
>> "Nothing, because it got carried over." It is just not necessary to add
>> more information here in order to make sense in the type
Some great, intense, back and forth. I ask that Michael and mray pause
your discussion for a moment, because I have another perspective I want
to throw into the mix that may change the discussion somewhat and I'd
like to avoid you wasting time, but it might take me an hour or few to
get that wr
On 08/10/2016 03:13 PM, mray wrote:
>
> To me the simplest answer to "What did I pay last months - and why?" is:
> "Nothing, because it got carried over." It is just not necessary to add
> more information here in order to make sense in the type "2." (simple)
> representation.
Lack of information
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 08/10/2016 12:31 PM, mray wrote:
On 10.08.2016 14:59, Bryan Richter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
I think this looks amazing. But I am easily wowed by nice graphics.
Looking forward to Michae
In terms of the bare minimum we need to let people support Snowdrift
through a crowdmatching mechanism, a payment or activity history is
not strictly necessary.
There has been a lot of good discussion, and we're kind of in the
middle of it, but I would like to suggest we put it on pause
nonetheles
Lots of snip…
> My point is that having "proper" entries inside a "$0-month is
> unintuitive.
I don't find entries that add up to 0 unintiutive at all.
> Not having to jump around months to make sense of the one
> payment that *did* happen seems more intuitive.
That I agree is intuitive.
We ma
On 10.08.2016 19:01, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 09:36 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/2016 05:59 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
I think there need to be two distinct representations of your
act
On 08/10/2016 12:31 PM, mray wrote:
>
>
> On 10.08.2016 14:59, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
>>
>> I think this looks amazing. But I am easily wowed by nice graphics.
>> Looking forward to Michael's response. Robert, I'm also curious how
On 10.08.2016 14:59, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
>
> I think this looks amazing. But I am easily wowed by nice graphics.
> Looking forward to Michael's response. Robert, I'm also curious how
> you think we should handle that stupid edge
On 08/10/2016 09:36 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 05:59 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there need to be two distinct representations of your
>>> activity on snowdrift.
>>>
>>> 1. A *complete* log of all a
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Bryan Richter
wrote:
I think this looks amazing. But I am easily wowed by nice graphics.
For this reason, it is a best practice to use sketches or other things
that are not so pretty at this stage of development.
If that would get in the way of actually ite
On 08/10/2016 05:59 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08.08.2016 19:55, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> Here's a revised mockup without the pledge subtotal and showing
>>> both the "too low" and "too high" reasons for carryo
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
wrote:
>
>
> On 08.08.2016 19:55, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> > Here's a revised mockup without the pledge subtotal and showing
> > both the "too low" and "too high" reasons for carryover. In this
> > example, the user increased their
On 08.08.2016 19:55, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> Here's a revised mockup without the pledge subtotal and showing both the "too
> low" and "too high" reasons for carryover. In this example, the user
> increased
> their limit in July. There are other changes also, such as noting what the
> limit
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:03:40PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
> Seems entirely reasonable. I propose not to worry about dropping
> pledges until post-launch.
I agree. I've added an issue so we track this for later:
https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/issue/460
signature.asc
Description
On August 9, 2016 2:08:41 PM EDT, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 10:42 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:09:47AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>
I agree with Michael here, but there is a limit. Imagine a user
On 08/09/2016 10:42 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:09:47AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Michael here, but there is a limit. Imagine a user
>>> who pledges to many projects which are then suspended as
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:09:47AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree with Michael here, but there is a limit. Imagine a user
> > who pledges to many projects which are then suspended as they
> > grow, but who is also lazy and leaves
On 08/09/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
> I agree with Michael here, but there is a limit. Imagine a user who pledges
> to many projects which are then suspended as they grow, but who is also lazy
> and leaves the pledges suspended rather than dropping them. Their history
> could beco
On August 8, 2016 1:30:11 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>On 08/02/2016 05:55 PM, mray wrote:
>> * items that did not contribute to a months spending can be omitted
>for
>> clarity. Carried over pledges appear on the respective new month.
>> Suspended projects are not treated different as non-
On 08/02/2016 05:55 PM, mray wrote:
> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup, also
>> attached in
>> .ods format. This shows payment processing fees, two successive months of
>> carry-over, and an example where a pledge was
On August 3, 2016 5:54:28 PM GMT+03:00, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm just saying that post-MVP we want to make sure history
> emphasizes pride in being a long-term patron. The strict MVP could have
> no history. The nice-for-MVP history is just the minimum you describe
> that allows auditing ("
On 08/03/2016 04:24 AM, mray wrote:
>
>
> On 03.08.2016 12:52, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 01:31 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> We discussed this in today's meeting
On 03.08.2016 12:52, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 01:31 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>>> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup,
also attached
On 03.08.2016 10:31, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup,
>>> also attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing f
On 08/03/2016 01:31 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup,
>>> also attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> > We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup,
> > also attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing fees,
> > two successive months of carry-over, a
On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup, also attached
> in
> .ods format. This shows payment processing fees, two successive months of
> carry-over, and an example where a pledge was suspended:
>
Thanks for clarifying via
On 08/01/2016 02:30 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup, also
> attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing fees, two
> successive months of carry-over, and an example where a pledge was
> suspended:
>
>
In my view, this is goo
We discussed this in today's meeting. Here's a revised mockup, also
attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing fees, two
successive months of carry-over, and an example where a pledge was
suspended:
History mockup 2.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
54 matches
Mail list logo
