Re: [Discuss] Sprints?

[Stephen Michel]

To keep the number of emails manageable and whatnot, please move all 
conversation about deadlines and such to this new(!) wiki page & its 
discussion section:


https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/beta-sprint

Cheers,
S
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] PSA: Don't worry, I will be summarizing all these emails

[Stephen Michel]

If the volume of emails today has been overwhelming, don't worry about 
reading it all.


I am going to make a summary of the important points from each thread, 
some time in the next few days.


Cheers,
Stephen

To avoid further volume, please do not reply to this message.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 10/19/2015 03:47 PM, mray wrote:



 On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:



 On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:



 On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:

 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:


 On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
 I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the 
forum. To
 check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or 
"hate
 speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see 
every other

 discussion board ever for examples of this.


 I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way 
that

 Robert's mock-ups showed it.

 


 For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the 
positive

 aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
 acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for 
whatever
 I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly 
silenced

 you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
 hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. 
That is

 *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
 conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.

 Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, 
edit

 their post in response to a flagging?



 Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
 Technically this is censorship.
 It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react 
calm to

 flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
 I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!




 It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of 
Conduct.




 I start at the premise of ill intend.


Assuming bad faith is actually a CoC violation! ;)

 Somebody *can* misuse the flagging function no matter what our CoC 
says.

 Technically this capability is censorship - although probably short
 lived. But as bryan noted - removing a post only for hours can be 
pretty

 effective.

 Hence this is like giving potential lunatics an easy first shot, so
 maybe we should hand out this gun only to people that have shown 
true
 interest in the project and given the chance to not have been 
flagged

 for some time.



We already do not give flagging permissions to all new users. Users 
must
take enough actions to get a moderator to mark them eligible and 
*then*

they have to accept the honor pledge.

I further think that formal delays for flagging privileges like only
after posting X number of legitimate comments is a good way to have a
backup.

And this really is a topic where we can adapt later if necessary. We 
do

not want people to *hesitate* to flag actual violations, we want
violations cleaned up quickly and simply, and as long as there are
*active* moderators, they can respond if someone abuses the flagging
system. And no, in our case, some hours of delay on a comment is 
*not* a

huge deal.

But here's the real situation: The initial idea was to actually 
require

a handful of legitimate posts or other legitimate activities before
someone is even marked eligible for full established-user permissions 
at

all.

Being fully-established gives users the ability to even do things like
edit wiki pages. The chance of abuse there is as great and serious as
the chance of abusive flagging. There's a point where a user 
establishes

themselves enough that we trust them as a legitimate user to do things
like edit wiki pages and flag comments. There's little reason at this
time to actually think that such users will abuse flagging at all, and
if they do, moderators can still step in.

It would be totally unacceptable to let new users on the site
immediately come and flag comments, but that's not what we're doing.

The only issue we need to deal with right now is better clarification 
of
the prerequisites for overall eligibility (which then confers 
wiki-edit

/ posting / flagging etc. after accepting the honor pledge). Right now
it's just "when a moderator thinks a user is legit".

This is a case where we definitely can *later* and *if necessary* add 
a

second stage where users can post without moderation but not flag or
edit wiki pages.


I'm with Aaron on this one. In large part because I'm interested if 
this system will be more effective than traditional systems.


The only thing I could see adding in on launch would be a button for "I 
don't see anything wrong with my post. Can a mod review it and tell me 
what, if anything, is wrong with it.?" This could also be a "If you 
can't figure out why this post was flagged, email m...@snowdrift.coop 
for more information." As a way to investigate if censorship is taking 
place. I'm assuming that mods have (or will have) a way to see who 
flagged a comment, to identify trends if needed.


Censorship is a more interesting concern than spam or trolling, because 
it takes more sustained and targeted effort (ex: track a user over time 
and fl

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 03:40 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19.10.2015 17:47, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
  In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
  we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
  above-minimum levels.

  We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will
 tend to
  stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
  level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable
 (ie,
  easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
  level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
  just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.

  let n refer to the number of users.

  - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.
>>>
>>> There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
>>> sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
>>> see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
>>> appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.
>>>
>>> I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits
>>
>> I have read this.
>>
  - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000
 users.
  - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
  users' contribution.
>>>
>>> We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
>>> would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
>>> adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".
>>
>> There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:
>>
>> 1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have selected,
>> no matter what. The messaging should be:
>>  - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
>>- This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
>>  - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll
>> recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll
>> recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
>>- This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea
>> outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.
>>
- This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
- The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
  highlighted visually.
  - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
  displayed:
- "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"

  Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
  - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended
 donation).
  - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
- if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best
 deal"
  of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
- if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
  can't afford it from donating.
  - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
  adds little complexity).
  - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to
 users.

  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
>>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
>>> It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
>>> reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
>>> originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
>>> current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
>>> with all this.
>>>
>>> The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
>>> to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
>>> so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
>>> explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
>>> ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.
>>
>> This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT
>> actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula
>> is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."
>>
>> It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how
>> we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden
>> from the user.
>>
>> ~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information to
>> the user.
>>
>> The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way
>> to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism,
>> without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system,
>> particularly from the user's point of view.
>>
>> Most users will only ever see a button like:
>>
>> /-\
>> |**PLEDGE** 

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 03:47 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
>> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
>> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
>> discussion board ever for examples of this.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>
> 

 For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
 aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
 acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
 I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
 you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
 hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
 *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
 conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.

 Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
 their post in response to a flagging?

>>>
>>> Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
>>> Technically this is censorship.
>>> It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to
>>> flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
>>> I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of Conduct.
>>
> 
> I start at the premise of ill intend.

Assuming bad faith is actually a CoC violation! ;)

> Somebody *can* misuse the flagging function no matter what our CoC says.
> Technically this capability is censorship - although probably short
> lived. But as bryan noted - removing a post only for hours can be pretty
> effective.
> 
> Hence this is like giving potential lunatics an easy first shot, so
> maybe we should hand out this gun only to people that have shown true
> interest in the project and given the chance to not have been flagged
> for some time.
> 

We already do not give flagging permissions to all new users. Users must
take enough actions to get a moderator to mark them eligible and *then*
they have to accept the honor pledge.

I further think that formal delays for flagging privileges like only
after posting X number of legitimate comments is a good way to have a
backup.

And this really is a topic where we can adapt later if necessary. We do
not want people to *hesitate* to flag actual violations, we want
violations cleaned up quickly and simply, and as long as there are
*active* moderators, they can respond if someone abuses the flagging
system. And no, in our case, some hours of delay on a comment is *not* a
huge deal.

But here's the real situation: The initial idea was to actually require
a handful of legitimate posts or other legitimate activities before
someone is even marked eligible for full established-user permissions at
all.

Being fully-established gives users the ability to even do things like
edit wiki pages. The chance of abuse there is as great and serious as
the chance of abusive flagging. There's a point where a user establishes
themselves enough that we trust them as a legitimate user to do things
like edit wiki pages and flag comments. There's little reason at this
time to actually think that such users will abuse flagging at all, and
if they do, moderators can still step in.

It would be totally unacceptable to let new users on the site
immediately come and flag comments, but that's not what we're doing.

The only issue we need to deal with right now is better clarification of
the prerequisites for overall eligibility (which then confers wiki-edit
/ posting / flagging etc. after accepting the honor pledge). Right now
it's just "when a moderator thinks a user is legit".

This is a case where we definitely can *later* and *if necessary* add a
second stage where users can post without moderation but not flag or
edit wiki pages.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 21:29, Jason Harrer wrote:
>  Once we get some real data to analyze
> and determine what's working and what's not, there's always room for
> modification and improvement.

I have a concern about this view.
Our system is prone to self-influence.
Depending on starting parameters and initial staging the same
modifications can produce a very different outcome.

So just waiting for "real data" won't necessarily start giving better
hints about what we should change. Also there isn't an easy reset.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[mray]

On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:

 On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
> discussion board ever for examples of this.

 I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
 Robert's mock-ups showed it.

 
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
>>> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
>>> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
>>> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
>>> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
>>> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
>>> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
>>> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
>>>
>>> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
>>> their post in response to a flagging?
>>>
>>
>> Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
>> Technically this is censorship.
>> It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to
>> flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
>> I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!
>>
>>
> 
> It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of Conduct.
> 

I start at the premise of ill intend.
Somebody *can* misuse the flagging function no matter what our CoC says.
Technically this capability is censorship - although probably short
lived. But as bryan noted - removing a post only for hours can be pretty
effective.

Hence this is like giving potential lunatics an easy first shot, so
maybe we should hand out this gun only to people that have shown true
interest in the project and given the chance to not have been flagged
for some time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>  I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
>  check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
>  speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every
> other
>  discussion board ever for examples of this.
> >>>
> >>> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
> >>> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>
> >> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
> >> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
> >> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
> >> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
> >> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
> >> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
> >> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
> >> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
> >>
> >> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
> >> their post in response to a flagging?
> >>
> >
> > Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
> > Technically this is censorship.
> > It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to
> > flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
> > I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!
> >
> >
>
> It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of Conduct.
>
> I have every reason to suspect that actually our community won't even
> have real conflicts and will have no trouble editing because everyone
> mostly has good will. People who think they should have the right to be
> assholes are people we don't want, and they are the minority anyway.
>
> Obviously, we'll see how it goes, but the most likely case is that
> people find themselves surprised about a flagging because they didn't
> mean to be condescending, they will then say "oh, I see how this could
> be that way, okay, I'll fix it" and we move on and we successfully
> *avoid* the sorts of drawn out public confrontations we otherwise see
> online typically.
>
> So far, there's been no problems with this, and we'll adjust if need be.
> For what it's worth, I've been to events with people who spend full time
> managing online communities and they all think our approach sounds great
> and wanted to know more about the software and maybe would think about
> going that direction themselves. Only it's *way* harder to impose this
> after-the-fact.
>
> Basically, we can start with this blunt but thought-out approach, and
> it's FAR *easier* to make flagging harder or otherwise pull back on
> flagging if we need to than it is to impose more aggressive flagging
> later after it's already too late and we've had issues.
>

This is a really good point. But I agree with Robert that the censorship
bothers me. What if the flagged comment wasn't automatically removed from
the site, but they still received a request to modify their comment. If
they don't address the issue by either modifying or otherwise working it
out with whoever took offense, we could have some other protocol for
mediating the issue. The point is just that the comment wouldn't
automatically be censored as a result of someone else taking issue with it.

>
> --
> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 17:47, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>  In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
>>>  we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
>>>  above-minimum levels.
>>>
>>>  We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will
>>> tend to
>>>  stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
>>>  level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable
>>> (ie,
>>>  easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
>>>  level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
>>>  just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.
>>>
>>>  let n refer to the number of users.
>>>
>>>  - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.
>>
>> There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
>> sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
>> see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
>> appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.
>>
>> I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits
> 
> I have read this.
> 
>>>  - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000
>>> users.
>>>  - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
>>>  users' contribution.
>>
>> We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
>> would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
>> adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".
> 
> There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:
> 
> 1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have selected,
> no matter what. The messaging should be:
>  - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
>- This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
>  - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll
> recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll
> recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
>- This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea
> outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.
> 
>>>- This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
>>>- The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
>>>  highlighted visually.
>>>  - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
>>>  displayed:
>>>- "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"
>>>
>>>  Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
>>>  - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended
>>> donation).
>>>  - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
>>>- if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best
>>> deal"
>>>  of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
>>>- if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
>>>  can't afford it from donating.
>>>  - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
>>>  adds little complexity).
>>>  - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to
>>> users.
>>>
>>>  Thoughts?
>>
>> All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
>> It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
>> reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
>> originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
>> current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
>> with all this.
>>
>> The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
>> to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
>> so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
>> explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
>> ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.
> 
> This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT
> actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula
> is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."
> 
> It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how
> we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden
> from the user.
> 
> ~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information to
> the user.
> 
> The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way
> to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism,
> without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system,
> particularly from the user's point of view.
> 
> Most users will only ever see a button like:
> 
> /-\
> |**PLEDGE**  |
> | (recommended donation)" |
> \-/
>(change donation level)
> 
> ~Stephen
> 

This *still* is

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
 I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
 check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
 speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
 discussion board ever for examples of this.
>>>
>>> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
>>> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
>> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
>> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
>> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
>> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
>> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
>> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
>> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
>>
>> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
>> their post in response to a flagging?
>>
> 
> Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
> Technically this is censorship.
> It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to
> flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
> I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!
> 
> 

It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of Conduct.

I have every reason to suspect that actually our community won't even
have real conflicts and will have no trouble editing because everyone
mostly has good will. People who think they should have the right to be
assholes are people we don't want, and they are the minority anyway.

Obviously, we'll see how it goes, but the most likely case is that
people find themselves surprised about a flagging because they didn't
mean to be condescending, they will then say "oh, I see how this could
be that way, okay, I'll fix it" and we move on and we successfully
*avoid* the sorts of drawn out public confrontations we otherwise see
online typically.

So far, there's been no problems with this, and we'll adjust if need be.
For what it's worth, I've been to events with people who spend full time
managing online communities and they all think our approach sounds great
and wanted to know more about the software and maybe would think about
going that direction themselves. Only it's *way* harder to impose this
after-the-fact.

Basically, we can start with this blunt but thought-out approach, and
it's FAR *easier* to make flagging harder or otherwise pull back on
flagging if we need to than it is to impose more aggressive flagging
later after it's already too late and we've had issues.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 23:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2015 01:47 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
 I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
 check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
 speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
 discussion board ever for examples of this.
>>>
>>> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
>>> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
>> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
>> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
>> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
>> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
>> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
>> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
>> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
>>
>> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
>> their post in response to a flagging?
>>
> 
> Actually, we've so far had no violations of the Code of Conduct at all
> within the system anyway. The features we *do* need are moderator
> controls and permissions to assure that flagging isn't abused. We need a
> function for moderators to remove someone's flagging permissions. But
> yes, there will be room to tweak and to see how things go.

Maybe flagging permission should be something you earn after your 10th
(100th?) post?

> 
> And we *do* need to make sure that there are ramifications in the end
> for false-flagging. That remains a speculative concern beyond the level
> of the core flagging system. Given the whole process to get established,
> accept the honor pledge, and the specific flagging procedure, we may
> basically never have legitimate users abuse this at all. If flagging
> worked without specifying the violation, people could just flag for "I
> don't like this", but we require people to specify what the violation
> was, and then it is *obvious* if you simply check something with no
> basis, and we can turn off your flagging privileges.
> 
> In other words, the work of having to specify what specific part of the
> CoC was violated blocks normal legitimate people from flagging just over
> not liking something. Only actually malicious trolls will flag something
> otherwise. A normal person will see the list, recognize that this view
> they don't like doesn't violate any of these items and give up on the
> flagging. It's an important burden for the flagger to clarify from the
> limited set of issues what makes this deserve to be flagged.
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>>> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
>>> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
>>> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
>>> discussion board ever for examples of this.
>>
>> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
>> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>>
>> 
> 
> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
> 
> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
> their post in response to a flagging?
> 

Those two terms contain exactly my concerns.
Technically this is censorship.
It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to
flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends.
I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Launch ready issues

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 03:16 PM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> 1)decide on a payment service
> 2)open a bank account
> 3)have all graphics and coding actually loaded (not sure this is the
> right term) on the live site so we can test for bugs.
> 4)have a working draft of bylaws finalized
> 5)officially appoint initial board members/other roles
> 
> I'm not sure where we're at on all of these. Can those who know more
> than me please add to or delete from this list, or if there is already
> an attempt at a definitive to do list, please direct me to it. A wiki
> page might be a better format for this. A separate list for each email
> list might be better too...
> 
> 


See https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/next

We have a bank account already. Cheers


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

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Launch ready issues

[Jonathan Roberts]

1)decide on a payment service
2)open a bank account
3)have all graphics and coding actually loaded (not sure this is the right
term) on the live site so we can test for bugs.
4)have a working draft of bylaws finalized
5)officially appoint initial board members/other roles

I'm not sure where we're at on all of these. Can those who know more than
me please add to or delete from this list, or if there is already an
attempt at a definitive to do list, please direct me to it. A wiki page
might be a better format for this. A separate list for each email list
might be better too...
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

> While we're going meta...
>
> One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is
> predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I haven't
> spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this assumption
> is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.
>
> I will continue to ponder.
>

I think they should exist, but with as little pomp as possible. The point
as I see it is to provide a mechanism for specifying the role of each board
member; for assigning each board member to a unique constituency with
unique needs. So I think your earlier question is the central question
here.

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

Re: [Discuss] Sprints?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Jason Harrer 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Stephen Michel 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jason Harrer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we keep changing everything and second guessing and changing
>> everything, we're never going to launch.
>>
>>
>> This is a really good point. How do people feel about setting up sprints
>> / (in)formal deadlines for feature discussion? Or just some procedure for
>> closing a topic for discussion, as we get closer to finishing the design of
>> our MVP / beta launch?
>>
>>
> I honestly feel deadlines could be a beneficial thing, not because nothing
> is getting done (plenty is getting done!), but rather it helps us to focus
> and determine what truly must get done before we go live.  Although these
> conversations and recommendations are nice, at some point, we need to just
> stick with a mechanism (and I think at this point we kind of did that) and
> actually try it out and see how things work.
>
> I don't think any particular method will be 100% perfect out of the gate,
> nor have I heard anyone to claim they will be.  In fact, Aaron has talked
> about the beauty of being able to analyze and tweak things after we go live
> on a continual basis, in order to find our best practice.
>

I agree with all of this. Can we define what the absolutely necessary goals
are that pragmatically have to be done in order to launch? For instance,
deciding for sure who we're going to go with to process transactions...

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

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Stephen Michel]

While we're going meta...

One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is 
predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I 
haven't spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this 
assumption is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.


I will continue to ponder.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Richter  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> >
> >Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> >considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
> >to give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on
> >the board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for
> >someone to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we
> >call it.
>
> I see your point. So the question is, who is being represented? What
> is a "full-time staff"?
>
> I agree with Aaron: trying to create metrics or algorithms for
> deciding such a thing sounds dicey to me.
>
> Would it help to ask what sort of needs they might have that would
> make them distinct? That is, is "full-time staff" truly a valid
> category, and if so, can we define them by their unique interests?
>

I think these questions are helpful, and are along the lines I've been
thinking. Issues related to getting payed for work are a pretty easy to
define set of unique interests.

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

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Jonathan Roberts]

Aaron,

I was not aware of the mechanism; now that you've explained it, I think
it's a great system. It allows for a moderator to immediately see the
specific nature of the complaint and consequently it can be dealt with
expediently.

-Jon

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
> > check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
> > speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
> > discussion board ever for examples of this.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>
> The labeling of something as having one or the other of these issues is
> *not* part of a public discussion or even a back-and-forth discussion.
> Saying publicly, "that's hate speech" and having a conversation about it
> is *exactly* the sort of problems you are talking about, and not at all
> how flagging works on Snowdrift.coop.
>
> Flagging on Snowdrift.coop is an *anonymous* hiding of someone's post
> with a specific statement about which item(s) in the formal Code of
> Conduct are involved. In other words, you don't get to reply at all.
> There is no thread, there is no reply. There is *only* the fact that
> your comment is hidden, and you get to repost it by fixing the issue.
>
> It is a fundamentally different thing than getting a specific reply in a
> conversation. You post something someone says is unconstructive
> criticism, your post is flagged and hidden, and all you have is the fact
> that your post is hidden and was checked as unconstructive criticism.
> You don't get to reply, and you don't get told who flagged you. You get
> to look at your post and figure out how to make it constructive, and
> then you repost, and *then* we can predict reasonably that constructive
> conversation will continue and bad feelings will subside as people are
> happy that they are having productive discussion.
>
> In short, I don't think our design is bad, but I *do* think the public
> posting of something in the manner the mockup might have indicated
> *would* be bad for the very reasons you bring up.
>
>
> >
> > I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional de-escalating
> > forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you do this."
> >
>
> While that makes sense for de-escalating if there's actually a
> persistent conflict, the point is not to even *have* back and forth
> discussion that includes problematic, disrespectful statements. I've
> seen tons of forums where the focus gets lost and tons of things go
> badly despite good will from some people because the topic gets
> overwhelmed by the long discussion that mixes various defensiveness with
> attempts at de-escalation.
>
> Again, the point is that "I feel this when you do this" in various
> forums gets replies like "whatever, screw you" if someone is really
> upset or just being a jerk. And there's tons of subtle misunderstandings
> where a comment had *zero* ill-will but was read that way by someone,
> and then the whole thing becomes a long thread about the communication
> instead of the topic at hand, and little things get misunderstood and
> blow up all the attempts at reconciliation.
>
> Again, this is about nipping it in the bud, fix the problematic post
> immediately, no discussion. If you think it was fine, just fix it anyway
> and try again so we can move on.
>
> I can't say this strongly enough: I agree *completely* that publicly or
> even in a back-and-forth discussion saying "that's defensive" isn't the
> optimal communication style. But our flagging system is not that. The
> unfortunate fact is that we *cannot* accept a totally loose style of
> flagging that is all about just expressing feelings. We absolutely have
> to have clear guidelines with precise items that can be pointed to as
> violations because that sort of strict Code of Conduct is the only way
> that marginalized people or those worried about caustic environments can
> feel safe.
>
> It cannot be the burden of someone who receives a personal attack to
> rise up and express in great politeness how they feel and work on
> de-escalating. For this type of situation where we're not discussing
> personal relations, we're discussing projects and decisions and general
> things, we have to simply say that personal attacks are not acceptable,
> period. The thing is, while some forums shame people for slipping or
> even ban them etc., we give them the chance to fix the comment and move on.
>
> We don't *need* to de-escalate because we block the entire initial
> escalation. The very first time anything is unconstructive or attacking
> or condescending it gets flagged, fixed, reposted, and we move on. The
> goal is to stop the escalation in the first place.
>
> This is also not the right solution for a small in-person meeting. It's
> the solution for a generali

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:18:14PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2015 02:06 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> 
> > This is actually more than just a psychological barrier. This will
> > actually prevent institutional sponsors from signing up. I spoke
> > with... someone... shoot! I forget who now, but it was at the
> > Community Leadership Summit. He said that donations made by large
> > organizations need to have dollar amounts known well in advance for
> > accounting and bookkeeping.
> > 
> > I think this is a substantial issue.
> 
> I think that person was ribasushi who is lurking in IRC.

Correct!

> We definitely need special institutional levels, and anyway,
> institutions *can* budget a certain amount as long as they know that's
> the limit. The budget doesn't *have* to get all spent.

That's exactly the point, as I understood ribasushi. It *does* have to
be spent. I understand the problem, and it's something of a cliche:
"If you don't use your budget, you don't get your budget next year."

> This isn't a launch stage issue anyway.

True.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 02:06 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44:34AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>>These things may have been discussed already, but these are
>>initial thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie
>>theoretical potential patrons.
>>
>>1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
>>representation of what they are going to be paying total. This
>>relates to the other discussion we were having; regardless of
>>whether or not it gives people the impression that this is a
>>"great bargain" or whatever, people need to see a very clear
>>presentation of what they will be called on to pay or they will
>>be very nervous about signing on at all.
> 
> I don't believe we have an entirely adequate solution to assuage this
> concern. The fundamental difficulty is that in order to have a
> mutually-matching funding system, it appears that a patron must
> "withhold" funds to use as incentive for other patrons. At best, they
> have to not know what they will actually contribute one month from
> now.
> 

The key is that early adopters will be the ones who aren't so absurdly
skeptical, they're happy to *try* it, and the other folks will follow
their lead, and we'll have clarity about what to expect once there's
some history built up.

And yes, withholding all your possible donations to instead incentivize
others is the core of matching even in today's version of corp puts up
$10,000 in 1:1 matching offer. They don't just donate it, they do this
matching offer.


> This is actually more than just a psychological barrier. This will
> actually prevent institutional sponsors from signing up. I spoke
> with... someone... shoot! I forget who now, but it was at the
> Community Leadership Summit. He said that donations made by large
> organizations need to have dollar amounts known well in advance for
> accounting and bookkeeping.
> 
> I think this is a substantial issue.

I think that person was ribasushi who is lurking in IRC. I had the same
discussion.

We definitely need special institutional levels, and anyway,
institutions *can* budget a certain amount as long as they know that's
the limit. The budget doesn't *have* to get all spent. And our system
allows that sort of budgeting.

This isn't a launch stage issue anyway.

> 
>>2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average
>>pledge rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000
>>people, but then 6 sign on, you don't each need to be paying
>>$12- each person can be paying much less than the original $1 per
>>5000, and the collective result will still be enormous.
> 
> As others have said, this would be a *great* problem to have.
> 
> That said, it is still obviously a psychological barrier that comes up
> way at the beginning. We can't just dust it off and say "Oh that's not
> a problem": it may not be, but the *perception* that it is is a
> problem in itself.
> 
> This barrier may drop with real numbers and real activity. I could see
> charts showing the last three months of payouts for a project showing
> potential signups what they're probably getting into.
> 
> For just this reason, it may be good to focus on supporting
> *existing, established* projects at release.
> 

That's my feeling as well. Speculative projects aren't the best fit for
us compared to existing but underfunded ones. But we can try different
things if we get the system launched to be able to try.

> It may be good to come up with other mitigating solutions, as well.
> 
>>3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from
>>a bank account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help
>>some people feel comfortable, but other people are going to say
>>"I don't want to have to keep thinking about depositing funds or
>>be reminded of it; I believe in this enough to just commit to it
>>being directly withdrawn.
> 
> This may, in fact, be the only method used. The design is in flux, and
> what we are legally capable of doing is not entirely clear yet. :)
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44:34AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>These things may have been discussed already, but these are
>initial thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie
>theoretical potential patrons.
>
>1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
>representation of what they are going to be paying total. This
>relates to the other discussion we were having; regardless of
>whether or not it gives people the impression that this is a
>"great bargain" or whatever, people need to see a very clear
>presentation of what they will be called on to pay or they will
>be very nervous about signing on at all.

I don't believe we have an entirely adequate solution to assuage this
concern. The fundamental difficulty is that in order to have a
mutually-matching funding system, it appears that a patron must
"withhold" funds to use as incentive for other patrons. At best, they
have to not know what they will actually contribute one month from
now.

This is actually more than just a psychological barrier. This will
actually prevent institutional sponsors from signing up. I spoke
with... someone... shoot! I forget who now, but it was at the
Community Leadership Summit. He said that donations made by large
organizations need to have dollar amounts known well in advance for
accounting and bookkeeping.

I think this is a substantial issue.

>2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average
>pledge rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000
>people, but then 6 sign on, you don't each need to be paying
>$12- each person can be paying much less than the original $1 per
>5000, and the collective result will still be enormous.

As others have said, this would be a *great* problem to have.

That said, it is still obviously a psychological barrier that comes up
way at the beginning. We can't just dust it off and say "Oh that's not
a problem": it may not be, but the *perception* that it is is a
problem in itself.

This barrier may drop with real numbers and real activity. I could see
charts showing the last three months of payouts for a project showing
potential signups what they're probably getting into.

For just this reason, it may be good to focus on supporting
*existing, established* projects at release.

It may be good to come up with other mitigating solutions, as well.

>3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from
>a bank account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help
>some people feel comfortable, but other people are going to say
>"I don't want to have to keep thinking about depositing funds or
>be reminded of it; I believe in this enough to just commit to it
>being directly withdrawn.

This may, in fact, be the only method used. The design is in flux, and
what we are legally capable of doing is not entirely clear yet. :)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] [Legal] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:46:25AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>related to #2. Is there an option for an "upper limit?" A person can say
>"I want to give to this but I can't go above $5 a month and I don't want
>to have to drop out or be constantly re-adjusting my pledge rate."
>On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts

We have to encourage people to see this as an unconstructive way to
contribute.

1. There are already lots of unilateral-donation options out
there. They can use Patreon or Gratipay to set up monthly flat-rate
donations.

2. Those systems do great work, but they hardly work. No dent on
overall economics. There's this thing called the Snowdrift dilemma...

3. It's true, we give up individual control, but we place that control
in the hands of democracy. We, together, choose the amount that each
project receives.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Sprints?

[Jason Harrer]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jason Harrer 
> wrote:
>
>
> If we keep changing everything and second guessing and changing
> everything, we're never going to launch.
>
>
> This is a really good point. How do people feel about setting up sprints /
> (in)formal deadlines for feature discussion? Or just some procedure for
> closing a topic for discussion, as we get closer to finishing the design of
> our MVP / beta launch?
>
>
I honestly feel deadlines could be a beneficial thing, not because nothing
is getting done (plenty is getting done!), but rather it helps us to focus
and determine what truly must get done before we go live.  Although these
conversations and recommendations are nice, at some point, we need to just
stick with a mechanism (and I think at this point we kind of did that) and
actually try it out and see how things work.

I don't think any particular method will be 100% perfect out of the gate,
nor have I heard anyone to claim they will be.  In fact, Aaron has talked
about the beauty of being able to analyze and tweak things after we go live
on a continual basis, in order to find our best practice.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 01:47 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>>> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
>>> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
>>> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
>>> discussion board ever for examples of this.
>>
>> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
>> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>>
>> 
> 
> For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
> aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
> acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
> I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
> you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
> hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
> *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
> conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.
> 
> Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
> their post in response to a flagging?
> 

Actually, we've so far had no violations of the Code of Conduct at all
within the system anyway. The features we *do* need are moderator
controls and permissions to assure that flagging isn't abused. We need a
function for moderators to remove someone's flagging permissions. But
yes, there will be room to tweak and to see how things go.

And we *do* need to make sure that there are ramifications in the end
for false-flagging. That remains a speculative concern beyond the level
of the core flagging system. Given the whole process to get established,
accept the honor pledge, and the specific flagging procedure, we may
basically never have legitimate users abuse this at all. If flagging
worked without specifying the violation, people could just flag for "I
don't like this", but we require people to specify what the violation
was, and then it is *obvious* if you simply check something with no
basis, and we can turn off your flagging privileges.

In other words, the work of having to specify what specific part of the
CoC was violated blocks normal legitimate people from flagging just over
not liking something. Only actually malicious trolls will flag something
otherwise. A normal person will see the list, recognize that this view
they don't like doesn't violate any of these items and give up on the
flagging. It's an important burden for the flagger to clarify from the
limited set of issues what makes this deserve to be flagged.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> 
>Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
>considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
>to give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on
>the board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for
>someone to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we
>call it.

I see your point. So the question is, who is being represented? What
is a "full-time staff"?

I agree with Aaron: trying to create metrics or algorithms for
deciding such a thing sounds dicey to me.

Would it help to ask what sort of needs they might have that would
make them distinct? That is, is "full-time staff" truly a valid
category, and if so, can we define them by their unique interests?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
> > check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
> > speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
> > discussion board ever for examples of this.
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
> Robert's mock-ups showed it.
>
> 

For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive
aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should
acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever
I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced
you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes,
hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is
*plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online
conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either.

Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit
their post in response to a flagging?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Sprints?

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jason Harrer  
wrote:


If we keep changing everything and second guessing and changing 
everything, we're never going to launch.


This is a really good point. How do people feel about setting up 
sprints / (in)formal deadlines for feature discussion? Or just some 
procedure for closing a topic for discussion, as we get closer to 
finishing the design of our MVP / beta launch?
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Jason Harrer]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
> thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential
> patrons.
>
> 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
> representation of what they are going to be paying total. This relates to
> the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or not it gives
> people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or whatever, people
> need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be called on to pay
> or they will be very nervous about signing on at all.
>
>
> This has also been my experience talking to others. I think the system of
> depositing funds and then paying from your deposit helps, but we could
> probably do more.
>
> **I think this particular issue IS worth talking about in the MVP. If
> we're going to get to the point where we have to worry about pledge sizes
> getting out of control, etc, we need to remove barriers to becoming a
> patron.**
>
> note to self: "Patronizing" cannot be used as a verb to mean "becoming a
> patron" :P
>
> At the same time, I also think if we're talking about the scale of less
> than $1 per month, people don't really care if that amount doubles. Some
> kind of 'warn me if my contribution/mo goes over $X feature' could be
> implemented?
>
> 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge rate
> go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but then 6
> sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person can be paying
> much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective result will
> still be enormous.
>
>
> I think this is a concern. However, I also agree with the general
> consensus: "too much money" is a very good problem to have. We should worry
> about getting to that point, and deal with this issue once we get there.
>
> After all, the worst case scenario is that patron X drops out because they
> can't afford the minimum donation, and the expense of a minimum donation
> acts as a kind of gating mechanism on how much money any one project can
> get at once.
>

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here:  By folks dropping
out when the amount gets too high, the community naturally determines on
their own how much is appropriate for the project to receive.  Those folks
who drop out will hopefully find a different project to fund, thus, once a
project's funding "normalizes" (for lack of a better term), allowing more
projects to obtain the community backing and support that they need to make
it.

Keep in mind, also, that we're in uncharted territory here:  Although we
can sit here and theorize and speculate how the public will do what and
when, we don't *really *know how exactly the community is overall going to
react to any particular aspect until we go live and watch what people do
with their money and with what projects and get feedback.  It may take
quite a long time before people start feeling like they're paying too much
for a project and start backing out.  Once we get some real data to analyze
and determine what's working and what's not, there's always room for
modification and improvement.  What we're talking about here is merely the
beginning stage.  If we keep changing everything and second guessing and
changing everything, we're never going to launch.


>
> 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a bank
> account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some people feel
> comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to have to
> keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I believe in
> this enough to just commit to it being directly withdrawn.
>
>
> Would be nice, but not necessary for launch.
>
> ~Stephen
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 10/19/2015 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:

 These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
 thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical 
potential

 patrons.

 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
 representation of what they are going to be paying total. This 
relates
 to the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or 
not it
 gives people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or 
whatever,
 people need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be 
called

 on to pay or they will be very nervous about signing on at all.



The idea is that they put up (or authorize), say $100, and the only
question is the *rate* it goes to *which* projects, which gets
determined by the matching pledge democratic system. There's no reason
this would make anyone feel uncomfortable. The design just needs to 
make

it clear that this is how it works.

In general, feedback about things comes from people in one of two 
forms

(based on a lot of experience I have talking to people):

A. So I could be charged *anything*? There's no limit or anything??
That's crazy!

or

B. Why did you take that time explaining to me that I authorize a
certain limit to my funds? It's completely obvious how it would work.
Why would anyone not just assume that?

And these two seem reasonably split, hard to predict which response I 
get.


Hmm. So maybe the takeaway here is that we just need to be careful with 
our messaging and we should be OK.



 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge
 rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but 
then
 6 sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person 
can be

 paying much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective
 result will still be enormous.



Really, you should read more or reread about
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits and
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism

The answer is simple: Our entire *goal* is to get to that point where
things are funded well enough that the concern is about spreading the
burden better. We're nowhere near that goal. We will be an unqualified
revolutionary success when we make *that* be our problem. It is a
*completely* different situation when we are underfunded and working 
to

raise more funds than when we reach a level of adequate funding.

There are two phases here: A. help drastically underfunded projects 
and

move funding from proprietary to FLO projects, B. spread the burden
better for well-funded FLO projects. B doesn't basically doesn't exist
at all right now, and our wildest dreams are to achieve a world where
we're at the B phase.

 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a 
bank
 account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some 
people

 feel comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to
 have to keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I
 believe in this enough to just commit to it being directly 
withdrawn.




Yes, we will support some sort of auto-renewal whether that's
auto-deposit or a time-period-based authorization of funds instead of
one-time authorization.


:)

~S
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial 
thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential 
patrons.


1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear 
representation of what they are going to be paying total. This 
relates to the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether 
or not it gives people the impression that this is a "great bargain" 
or whatever, people need to see a very clear presentation of what 
they will be called on to pay or they will be very nervous about 
signing on at all.


This has also been my experience talking to others. I think the system 
of depositing funds and then paying from your deposit helps, but we 
could probably do more.


**I think this particular issue IS worth talking about in the MVP. If 
we're going to get to the point where we have to worry about pledge 
sizes getting out of control, etc, we need to remove barriers to 
becoming a patron.**


note to self: "Patronizing" cannot be used as a verb to mean "becoming 
a patron" :P


At the same time, I also think if we're talking about the scale of less 
than $1 per month, people don't really care if that amount doubles. 
Some kind of 'warn me if my contribution/mo goes over $X feature' could 
be implemented?


2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge 
rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but 
then 6 sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person 
can be paying much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the 
collective result will still be enormous.


I think this is a concern. However, I also agree with the general 
consensus: "too much money" is a very good problem to have. We should 
worry about getting to that point, and deal with this issue once we get 
there.


After all, the worst case scenario is that patron X drops out because 
they can't afford the minimum donation, and the expense of a minimum 
donation acts as a kind of gating mechanism on how much money any one 
project can get at once.


3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a 
bank account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some 
people feel comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't 
want to have to keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded 
of it; I believe in this enough to just commit to it being directly 
withdrawn.


Would be nice, but not necessary for launch.

~Stephen
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
> thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential
> patrons.
> 
> 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
> representation of what they are going to be paying total. This relates
> to the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or not it
> gives people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or whatever,
> people need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be called
> on to pay or they will be very nervous about signing on at all.
> 

The idea is that they put up (or authorize), say $100, and the only
question is the *rate* it goes to *which* projects, which gets
determined by the matching pledge democratic system. There's no reason
this would make anyone feel uncomfortable. The design just needs to make
it clear that this is how it works.

In general, feedback about things comes from people in one of two forms
(based on a lot of experience I have talking to people):

A. So I could be charged *anything*? There's no limit or anything??
That's crazy!

or

B. Why did you take that time explaining to me that I authorize a
certain limit to my funds? It's completely obvious how it would work.
Why would anyone not just assume that?

And these two seem reasonably split, hard to predict which response I get.


> 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge
> rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but then
> 6 sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person can be
> paying much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective
> result will still be enormous.
> 

Really, you should read more or reread about
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits and
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism

The answer is simple: Our entire *goal* is to get to that point where
things are funded well enough that the concern is about spreading the
burden better. We're nowhere near that goal. We will be an unqualified
revolutionary success when we make *that* be our problem. It is a
*completely* different situation when we are underfunded and working to
raise more funds than when we reach a level of adequate funding.

There are two phases here: A. help drastically underfunded projects and
move funding from proprietary to FLO projects, B. spread the burden
better for well-funded FLO projects. B doesn't basically doesn't exist
at all right now, and our wildest dreams are to achieve a world where
we're at the B phase.

> 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a bank
> account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some people
> feel comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to
> have to keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I
> believe in this enough to just commit to it being directly withdrawn.
> 

Yes, we will support some sort of auto-renewal whether that's
auto-deposit or a time-period-based authorization of funds instead of
one-time authorization.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
> >
>
> From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
> email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow that way.
>
> Anyway, I think that it's okay to say that employees don't *have* to be
> co-op members, and to be they must be patrons just like everyone else.
> Or we could require it, but still have them be patrons.
>

Sorry about that...I agree with this...

>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts
> > mailto:robertsthebr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
> > definitely off the table.
> >
> > Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> > considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
> > give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the
> > board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone
> > to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> > >
> > > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough
> as a team
> > > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class
> in the
> > > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as
> a member
> > > of other project teams too.
> >
> > I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be
> > explicit, what
> > of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's
> the
> > route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food
> Coop,
> > REI, etc.)
> >
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop  Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop>
> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Jonathan Roberts]

related to #2. Is there an option for an "upper limit?" A person can say "I
want to give to this but I can't go above $5 a month and I don't want to
have to drop out or be constantly re-adjusting my pledge rate."

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts <
robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
> thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential
> patrons.
>
> 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
> representation of what they are going to be paying total. This relates to
> the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or not it gives
> people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or whatever, people
> need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be called on to pay
> or they will be very nervous about signing on at all.
>
> 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge rate
> go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but then 6
> sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person can be paying
> much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective result will
> still be enormous.
>
> 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a bank
> account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some people feel
> comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to have to
> keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I believe in
> this enough to just commit to it being directly withdrawn.
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Thoughts on pledge matching

[Jonathan Roberts]

These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial
thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential
patrons.

1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear
representation of what they are going to be paying total. This relates to
the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or not it gives
people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or whatever, people
need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be called on to pay
or they will be very nervous about signing on at all.

2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge rate
go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but then 6
sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person can be paying
much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective result will
still be enormous.

3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a bank
account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some people feel
comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to have to
keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I believe in
this enough to just commit to it being directly withdrawn.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate
> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other
> discussion board ever for examples of this.

I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that
Robert's mock-ups showed it.

The labeling of something as having one or the other of these issues is
*not* part of a public discussion or even a back-and-forth discussion.
Saying publicly, "that's hate speech" and having a conversation about it
is *exactly* the sort of problems you are talking about, and not at all
how flagging works on Snowdrift.coop.

Flagging on Snowdrift.coop is an *anonymous* hiding of someone's post
with a specific statement about which item(s) in the formal Code of
Conduct are involved. In other words, you don't get to reply at all.
There is no thread, there is no reply. There is *only* the fact that
your comment is hidden, and you get to repost it by fixing the issue.

It is a fundamentally different thing than getting a specific reply in a
conversation. You post something someone says is unconstructive
criticism, your post is flagged and hidden, and all you have is the fact
that your post is hidden and was checked as unconstructive criticism.
You don't get to reply, and you don't get told who flagged you. You get
to look at your post and figure out how to make it constructive, and
then you repost, and *then* we can predict reasonably that constructive
conversation will continue and bad feelings will subside as people are
happy that they are having productive discussion.

In short, I don't think our design is bad, but I *do* think the public
posting of something in the manner the mockup might have indicated
*would* be bad for the very reasons you bring up.


> 
> I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional de-escalating
> forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you do this."
> 

While that makes sense for de-escalating if there's actually a
persistent conflict, the point is not to even *have* back and forth
discussion that includes problematic, disrespectful statements. I've
seen tons of forums where the focus gets lost and tons of things go
badly despite good will from some people because the topic gets
overwhelmed by the long discussion that mixes various defensiveness with
attempts at de-escalation.

Again, the point is that "I feel this when you do this" in various
forums gets replies like "whatever, screw you" if someone is really
upset or just being a jerk. And there's tons of subtle misunderstandings
where a comment had *zero* ill-will but was read that way by someone,
and then the whole thing becomes a long thread about the communication
instead of the topic at hand, and little things get misunderstood and
blow up all the attempts at reconciliation.

Again, this is about nipping it in the bud, fix the problematic post
immediately, no discussion. If you think it was fine, just fix it anyway
and try again so we can move on.

I can't say this strongly enough: I agree *completely* that publicly or
even in a back-and-forth discussion saying "that's defensive" isn't the
optimal communication style. But our flagging system is not that. The
unfortunate fact is that we *cannot* accept a totally loose style of
flagging that is all about just expressing feelings. We absolutely have
to have clear guidelines with precise items that can be pointed to as
violations because that sort of strict Code of Conduct is the only way
that marginalized people or those worried about caustic environments can
feel safe.

It cannot be the burden of someone who receives a personal attack to
rise up and express in great politeness how they feel and work on
de-escalating. For this type of situation where we're not discussing
personal relations, we're discussing projects and decisions and general
things, we have to simply say that personal attacks are not acceptable,
period. The thing is, while some forums shame people for slipping or
even ban them etc., we give them the chance to fix the comment and move on.

We don't *need* to de-escalate because we block the entire initial
escalation. The very first time anything is unconstructive or attacking
or condescending it gets flagged, fixed, reposted, and we move on. The
goal is to stop the escalation in the first place.

This is also not the right solution for a small in-person meeting. It's
the solution for a generalized, anonymous, open online forum which has
it's own issues. Real enforcement of Code of Conduct, not just
guidelines for de-escalation, is an absolute requirement. I would not
have recognized this myself a few years ago, but having gotten involved
in the online tech world, I know how serious the problems can be and how
inadequate just promoting de-escalation can be.

> I have a couple ideas. First, to just have a flag button, but not the
> option t

Re: [Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To 
check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate 
speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every 
other discussion board ever for examples of this.


Heartily agreed.

I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional 
de-escalating forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you 
do this."


I have a couple ideas. First, to just have a flag button, but not the 
option to check various offenses that are stated in accusatory 
language. Second, there could be just one button that says something 
like "I feel uncomfortable with this" and then the space to specify. 
I would especially like this option if there was a "this friend 
speaks my mind" button next to it that was equally prominent.


Another option would be to have flags be visible only by moderators, 
who can then take the appropriate action.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
> 

From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow that way.

Anyway, I think that it's okay to say that employees don't *have* to be
co-op members, and to be they must be patrons just like everyone else.
Or we could require it, but still have them be patrons.

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts
> mailto:robertsthebr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
> definitely off the table.
> 
> Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
> give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the
> board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone
> to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  > wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >
> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a 
> team
> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a 
> member
> > of other project teams too.
> 
> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be
> explicit, what
> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
> REI, etc.)
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop 
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Flagging comments in the forum

[Jonathan Roberts]

I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To check
a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate speech" has a
lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other discussion board
ever for examples of this.

I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional de-escalating
forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you do this."

I have a couple ideas. First, to just have a flag button, but not the
option to check various offenses that are stated in accusatory language.
Second, there could be just one button that says something like "I feel
uncomfortable with this" and then the space to specify. I would especially
like this option if there was a "this friend speaks my mind" button next to
it that was equally prominent.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:

Brian,

Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is 
definitely off the table.


Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't 
considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to 
give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the 
board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone 
to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.


I feel that Brian's wording is important here: "paying a *nominal* fee.

It does a couple things for us:

1. Requires that snowdrift class members reveal their identity (at 
least, with the state of money today). -> prevents abuse
2. Requires some level of commitment. -> avoids the people who would 
just through whatever hoops because "why not?"

3. Provides VERY clear criteria. This is probably the biggest gain.

We could also do things like offer gratis 'promotion' to snowdrift 
class for paid employees to avoid any weirdness of "we're paying you to 
pay us to have special representation."


~S
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts <
robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
> off the table.
>
> Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't considered
> that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to give full time
> staff, payed or not, special representation on the board. In other words,
> I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone to be able to just "buy in"
> to that class, whatever we call it.
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >
>> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
>> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
>> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
>> > of other project teams too.
>>
>> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
>> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
>> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
>> REI, etc.)
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Brian,

Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
off the table.

Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't considered
that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to give full time
staff, payed or not, special representation on the board. In other words,
I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone to be able to just "buy in"
to that class, whatever we call it.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >
> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> > of other project teams too.
>
> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
> REI, etc.)
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Bryan Richter]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> of other project teams too.

I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
REI, etc.)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
 In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the 
mechanism;

 we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
 above-minimum levels.

 We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will 
tend to
 stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended 
pledge
 level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable 
(ie,

 easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
 level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, 
I

 just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.

 let n refer to the number of users.

 - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.


There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes 
any
sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate 
and

see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.

I think you need to read 
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits


I have read this.

 - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000 
users.

 - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
 users' contribution.


We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. 
That

would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".


There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:

1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have 
selected, no matter what. The messaging should be:

 - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
   - This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
 - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll 
recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll 
recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
   - This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea 
outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.



   - This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
   - The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's 
not

 highlighted visually.
 - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following 
message is

 displayed:
   - "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended 
donation[!/.]"


 Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
 - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended 
donation).

 - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
   - if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best 
deal"

 of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
   - if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who 
actually

 can't afford it from donating.
 - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
 adds little complexity).
 - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to 
users.


 Thoughts?


All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, 
discourage

reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
with all this.

The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too 
much

to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.


This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT 
actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula 
is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."


It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how 
we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden 
from the user.


~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information 
to the user.


The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way 
to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism, 
without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system, 
particularly from the user's point of view.


Most users will only ever see a button like:

/-\
|**PLEDGE**  |
| (recommended donation)" |
\-/
   (change donation level)

~Stephen



 ~Stephen


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



--
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https:

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
> we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
> above-minimum levels.
> 
> We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will tend to
> stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
> level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable (ie,
> easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
> level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
> just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.
> 
> let n refer to the number of users.
> 
> - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.

There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.

I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits


> - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000 users.
> - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
> users' contribution.

We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".

>   - This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
>   - The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
> highlighted visually.
> - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
> displayed:
>   - "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"
> 
> Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
> - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended donation).
> - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
>   - if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best deal"
> of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
>   - if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
> can't afford it from donating.
> - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
> adds little complexity).
> - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to users.
> 
> Thoughts?

All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
with all this.

The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.

> 
> ~Stephen
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Stephen Michel]

In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism; 
we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at 
above-minimum levels.


We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will tend 
to stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended 
pledge level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is 
reasonable (ie, easily within the user's budget), they will stick with 
that donation level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather 
arbitrary, I just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.


let n refer to the number of users.

- Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.
- For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000 
users.
- For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other 
users' contribution.

 - This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
 - The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not 
highlighted visually.
   - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is 
displayed:

 - "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"

Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
- A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended donation).
- A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
 - if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best 
deal" of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
 - if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually 
can't afford it from donating.
- An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie, 
adds little complexity).

- An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to users.

Thoughts?

~Stephen
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss