On 31.01.2017 22:50, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Being one of the 30 patrons so far, I think it's stalling a bit too much at
> the moment.
> So I have made a A4 flyer suitable to hang on the many pin boards along the
> hall way
> track at FOSDEM this weekend.
> The audience
On 20.09.2016 21:27, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> WHOOPS, I was too TIRED. I mistyped! I obviously meant:
> "CrowdMATCHING for public goods" not "crowdfunding"
> Sorry for the confusion there. The first few paragraphs should be
> changed to "crowdmatching" where I carelessly wrote "crowdfunding"
On 20.09.2016 10:04, mray wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>> What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> What about dropping "for"?
> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
> What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
What about dropping "for"?
"Crowdmatching for public goods"
"Crowdmatching public goods"
You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
goods. Omitting "for" also makes
On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that w
On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a
On 03.08.2016 04:13, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>> I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will be
>>> added to your outstanding balance each
During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works.
I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:
I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch it
*never ever*. A decision by the user to set a monthly limit trumps
"hidden costs" always,
On 04.06.2016 08:35, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Bryan Richter skreiv 04. juni 2016 03:47:
>> There are two situations where I'm not sure what the best action is.
> IMO, the best solution (in both cases) is to *not* reveal that the use
> has (or hasn’t) an account. If I’m trying to be
636 1352) and
> tell you to send me a Signal message :)
> If you still want to send me encrypted mail, my key is listed on
> keyservers by step...@snowdrift.coop and s...@smichel.me. Fingerprint is
> 642D CB46 D472 8806 1B9B
> 7F35 6FC6 59B5 2A14 5DE3
> On Sat, Mar 12
On 02.05.2016 22:27, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> This makes sense to me. Offering a few options rather than just one can
> change people's decision frame from "shall I do this?" (yes vs. no) to
> "how shall I do this?" (option 1 vs. option 2. vs none of the above).
> Offering a one-time option
On 12.03.2016 17:34, mray wrote:
> On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> ...please email me your general availability.
> Hello Stephen,
> I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
...just in case it may matte
On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
> ...please email me your general availability.
I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
about every second Thursday are probably bad for me. I hope this is helpful.
Thank you for caring about all the
Looks awesome: nice & simple.
On 23.01.2016 17:59, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> This is very much a first draft to illustrate an idea, but I'm sending
> it now in case it could be helpful at SCALE.
> Discuss mailing
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
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
On 21.09.2015 05:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> My vote now: ***Help Free the Commons***
Staring with "help" sounds desperate.
It also is very vague. Help in what way?
Helping to free something also sounds like it isn't free, but you set it
free. We are not doing this. We try to make people create
On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
> and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
> doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
> enough that it's better to go
On 17.09.2015 06:13, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Copying my reply from the design list (this discussion does belong on
> the general discuss list)
> On 09/16/2015 03:54 AM, mray wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>> It is time to have a fruitful discussion ab
On 13.07.2015 14:33, Peter Harpending wrote:
In addition, I don't want to get into the practice of playing
psychological tricks on our patrons. This isn't a casino, after all.
I don't have any trickery in mind. It is just another way to
transparently display the same thing. Having a
Mail list logo